Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Please read the information in the "What is mediation?", before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at Wikipedia:Mediation.

For more information

You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation (what is mediation)

Requests for mediation

It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full.

Notes and Guidelines:

1. Those involved may summarise as they see it, the need for mediation.
2. Only matters related to arranging mediation belong here, this page isn't a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.
3. Please put a note on the relevant talk page(s) that mediation has been sought.
4. Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment

See #Archives for past requests.

---

Nagorno-Karabakh: User:Tabib and User:Rovoam

I request formal mediation to deal with the protracted dispute primarily between myself and User:Rovoam over the content of the Nagorno-Karabakh page. We have been disputing (I can’t term it “discussing”) over the past two weeks and our arguments and counter-arguments have grown more than 100 page-long. Third party informal mediation by User:Davenbelle failed. Rovoam rejected my suggestion to proceed further paragraph by paragraph, a suggestion supported by another Armenian User:Aramgutang, who is much less biased than Rovoam. User:Rovoam’s unilateral edits, his manipulation with the facts and other editors’ arguments and his aggressive pushing of his biased POV have convinced me that there is simply no other way out but requesting formal mediation. I expect that this mediation will result in clear indication in the final article version of the following:

• Nagorno-Karabakh is both politically and geographically part of Azerbaijan Republic, a fact that needs no proof whatsoever, but still is stubbornly contested by Rovoam (!)
• The area today is occupied by the Armenian forces and local Karabakh Armenian separatists hold effective control over the territory (Rovoam doesn’t even accept this term “separatists”-!).
• In Nagorno-Karabakh infobox name of the region should be shown in all three languages (English, Armenian and Azeri) -->e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh/Lernayin Gharabagh/Daglig Qarabag
• The territory of present-day Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) was historically part of Caucasus Albania
• Caucasus Albanian church was subjugated to the Armenian church following the invasion of Arabs in early VIII c.
• Objective description, not favoring neither Armenian nor Azeri POV, on Stalin’s role in the history of Karabakh conflict.
• Adoption (possibly with some edits and additions) of the version I suggest based on the discussions so far. This version is here.--Tabib 13:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia

Discussion about the platform of this specific type of government has met with little results. The page blatantly provides misleading information and the admin refuses to look at the facts.

My complaints and claims:

The Liberal Party of Australia is not neoliberal but conservative. However, the user Xtra has refused to listen to reason, despite facts backing up each claim. References and citations have confirmed this conservative standing. However, attempts to get this innaccurate and false information corrected has been met with ridicule and partisan replies. I also object to the fact that the person running the page does in fact support for the very organisation he is defending. How can that be neutral? How can this page continue to provide false information? And how can he possibly be trusted to show partiality?

The definition of neoliberal pupports that "A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth" [link]:. The actions of the Liberal party (which I have linked to see Talk:Liberal Party of Australia oppose this notion of "social justice" and instead prefer social conservatism and therefore do not represnt neoliberal policies (by definition). - PSYCH 06:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The user Xtra refuses to listen on the issue, and even deletes/archives any discussion on the topic that doesn't supoprt his point of view. This, as well as his support for the same political party he's defining, violate any NPOV policy. - PSYCH 07:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation is therefore needed to resolve this situation, as the content is not accurate. How can a person who supports a political party be allowed to define it? Mediation is the only resort to sort out this issue. - PSYCH 01:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I decline mediation. Mediation requires give and take by both parties. PSYCH refuses to give any ground and is obsessively trolling my talk page. In addition, the changes that PSYCH wishes to make would actually make the article innacurate. In fact, whereas I put up a refference to support the current wording, PSYCH has shown nothing but political ramblings. Hence, I decline mediation. Xtra 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is just the behaviour that Xtra is known for. I have provided countless evidence that the Liberal Party is in fact not neoliberal, but Xtra refuses to listen to reason, and removes any such discussion (before anyone can read it) because it does not agree with his POV. Other users besides myself also disagree with his "beliefs" (not facts) an yet he ignores them, and refuses to comprimise (despite recommendations from others users see Talk:Liberal Party of Australia ).

So how can he be the sole voice in dictating what appears on that page when the facts and other users prove him incorrect? Any discussion that isn't compatible with his beliefs is removed before anyone else can read it. How is that possibly being "open to discussion"?

Xtra simply "declines" mediation -- evidence he is refusing to even comprimise, believing his version must be the only version. This is not productive.

Mediation is required because this conversation is deadlocked. By definition neoliberalism requires social justice, something the Liberal Party are not known for. Ask any Australian and the consensus would never point to neoliberalism, so how can he still promote his bias? - PSYCH 09:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment: User:PSYCH has no edits to a single article on the Wikipedia. RickK 09:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just a Reply: At the time of my original edit, I was unregistered. Since then I have registered, as I mentioned on the talk page. It was on the TALK page; I linked to for people to actually read.

Every time I edited (anonymously, U didn't realise I had to register to edit) they were incorrectly removed by Xtra because they did not match his POV as I have mentioned countless times. - PSYCH 10:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xtra is certainly *not* the "sole defender" of this wording. It existed before Xtra arrived here as a Wikipedian [1]. It puzzles me that PSYCH refuses to describe the Liberals, whom s/he despises, as neo-liberal, since I have been in left wing forums where "neo-liberal" is used as an insult. The original wording of the article very nicely puts the proposition - that the party follows neo-liberal economic policies, and conservative social policies, with differences within the party on social policy questions (eg. abortion), but a dominantly conservative viewpoint. I'm concerned that the dispute could be mischaracterised as an argument over wording, whereas any grounds for dispute resolution most probably lie with the heated discussions and personal attacks, rather than a question of content. Lacrimosus 12:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: Talk - Liberal Party of Australia

I have to disagree about the neoliberal issue.

If you look at this link [2], where it states that neoliberalism in a social context is best described as "social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces".

How can a government have a "strong" neo-liberal element if they don't follow this fundamental principle?

However, I will concede that a neoliberal government is usually infamous for it's policies ensuring the "rich get richer & poor get poorer," very much like the Howard government.

I was curious whether it be appropriate to post the above quote on the Liberal page?

What was the above user, obviously a liberal, doing on a left-wing forum? Glass Houses, people. --Ozguy 01:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

just a comment. Ozguy is a new user, with this being his only edit. suspect is sockpuppet of PSYCH. Xtra 03:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I saw this link on a site. " xtra " your comments could be construed as a personal attack. Personal attacks are not condoned here on Wikipedia. Please refrain from such innappropriate remarks, especially on a mediation page. --Ozguy 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

nothing of the sort could be construed. Xtra 06:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I stated, such comments were inappropriate, but I refuse to engage in such banter. --Ozguy 07:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a forum to attack each other -- as Xtra has declined mediation, there should be no further argument here. I'm sorry I haven't archived the request yet. Anyone who wants to further pursue matters with Xtra should either file an RFC concerning his conduct or else seek Arbitration. But I'd much rather you all work together and build consensus on a good NPOV version of the article -- the thing to remember is that, on any partisan or political issue, a good NPOV article probably unsettles intelligent folks on both sides just a bit. But you have to be willing to give in and let some facts and descriptions in that don't quite match your perspective, as long as those facts are carefully documented and substantiated. Good luck to you all. Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Safavids: deadlocked discussion and revert war

User Pantherarosa waged a revert war on Safavids page. He deliberately deletes the historical facts concerning the Turkic-speaking origin of the Safavids, the pictures and maps rightfully included in the Safavids page and other historical details narrating the history of the Safavid state (1501-1736). Instead, he constantly reverts the article without even adding something new, thus making the page to look like almost a stub. He tries to promote his pan-Persian nationalistic POV arguing that Safavids were of Persian and/or Kurdish ("Aryan") origin. He simply ignores numerous authoritative Western and even Iranian sources pointing that Safavids were Turkic-speaking. He labels these sources (among them medieval chronicles, Cambridge History of Iran in 8 volumes etc.) as "hearsay" and "efforts of Turkish zealots"... The discussions (as well as reverts and counter-reverts) have become increasingly tense and ugly. Mediation is needed to bridge the gap of understanding and mutual personal antagonisms. If mediation doesn't work, arbitration would be the last resort.--Tabib 15:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg User:MathKnight

Although I accepted the last version by him during a ‘possible Edit war’ now as I think as I accepted his last version. There shouldn’t be any question of edit war. But despite this The contents were removed and a template was put. Although I reverted but very hopeless to see any resolution through talk. Because I was denied when I asked reason for edits. Discussions are going no where he said that he dont want long discussions there. Can I get any help here. (At least one of them is an admin).

Zain 00:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War

user:172 is engaged in abusive editing practices on this article and refuses several polite requests for discussion (see Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War) by me. He has reverted several material contributions I have made to the article (exceeding the 3 revert rule) and refuses to discuss them. "172" has also reinserted blatant POV terminology of his own after I have edited it with more neutral alternatives. Again he refuses to discuss the edits I have proposed or any alternative. "172" has removed the "Point of View dispute" header 3 times now despite the dispute remaining unresolved and his own refusal to discuss it. Most recently, "172" made a personal attack on me in his edit summary (on another revert of my edits), calling me a neo-confederate without substantiation. Mediator help is needed on this one as I have exhausted the other means of dispute resolution with this editor and believe that he has severely breached editing protocol. Thanks -- user:rangerdude 1.8.05

This user has removed sourced scholarship on Origins of the American Civil War repeatedly and replaced it with his unsourced neo-Confederate pro-slavery mumbo jumbo. Also, taking a look at his user history, this person seems to know his way around Wikipeida a bit too well for someone who just started work hours ago. I suspect that this is a returning trouble-maker... And I did respond to this user twice, on his/her user talk page and on the article talk page. 172 09:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: User 172's comments above - it is plain to me that this individual is not being honest. His attacks on my editing history are simply the latest in a long string of personal attacks this user has been making against me since I challenged the neutrality of an article he wrote earlier this evening. I am a new user of wikipedia who discovered its features a couple weeks ago. I decided to test the waters of the site and see if I liked it. I made some additions to about a dozen or so articles of all sorts of subjects as an IP contributer until I got the hang of posting. When my edits were removed by 172 earlier this evening it was the first conflict I've had on wikipedia, so I decided to go ahead and sign up as a regular user hoping we could discuss them.

Regarding his claims - First, I did not remove "sourced scholarship" - I made minor NPOV edits to an article that he wrote and _claims_ is sourced scholarship (presumably because he wrote it), though it reads more like a partisan rant in its present form and doesn't give any specific sources for much of anything in the article's text. I also added additional material to the article including several wikilinks to other articles on the subject and several specific references to legislation, authors, and historical figures that were not included in his original article. The NPOV edits included replacing several cases of biased terminology with neutral alternatives. Among the terms I edited were "reactionary," "extremists," and "agitators" among other things - all words that connote a clear point of view and pass pejorative judgements on their objects. He arrived and immediately reverted everything I did - both the additions of material and the NPOV edits without discussion.

That's when I signed up and went immediately to the talk page where I politely posted my differences with his edits and reverts, and restored the work that I had done before he deleted it all for no stated reason. I waited expecting he'd follow suit in discussion and he did not. Instead he came back and reverted everything again. And again after that, this time calling me a "neo-confederate" in the edit summary box without any basis. That's when I came here to request mediation. Furthermore, he is simply not being truthful when he claims that he spoke with me twice. 172 did not even attempt to contact me until after I requested mediation and posted notice of it on the discussion page, and then it was a rude "talk" message accusing me of being a former user.

Also something very wierd is going on with the article histories. User 172, I just learned, is an administrator. Some of the article histories that reveal the abuses I described to you aren't there anymore. Is it possible for administrators to cleanse their histories? I do not know if wikipedia sysops have the ability to check histories that have been cleansed, but some aren't showing up anymore - all after I raised a complaint about 172 here. I don't know what kind of a show it is that going on around here but I've gotta say it's been an unpleasant welcome experience to wikipedia! Anybody out there who is reading this - please help asap! --user:rangerdude, 1.8.04

Re: Also something very wierd is going on with the article histories. 172, I just learned, is an administrator. Some of the article histories that reveal the abuses I described to you aren't there anymore.

Wikipedia is experiencing problems with the server at the moment. At times the user contribution, page history, and watchlist features generate out-of-data data. Why this is the case is beyond me. This is a question for the developers. Even so, administrators do not even have the ability to tamper with the page histories.

Assuming good faith, this may explain the claims of this user that I have not responded to his/her concerns. I posted a note on the origins talk page before the request for mediation was made. I posted a note on his/her talk page. I think that it was before the request on this page was lodged, but I may be wrong. I'll have to double-check this. I attempted to make an additional response on the origins talk page an hour ago, but the server was down.

Re: ...long string of personal attacks this user has been making against me since I challenged the neutrality of an article he wrote earlier this evening

I did not write this article earlier this evening. It has been a featured article subject to intense scrutiny and peer editing for nearly a year. The charge of a long string of personal attacks is also quite odd. First, this comment is on the alarmist side, as we a dealing with a mere handful of edits over a couple of hours. Second, I did not personally attack this user. I characterized some of the changes as 'pro-slavery neo-Confederate mumbo jumbo.' There is a difference between criticizing work and attacking a user. The former is an essential component of the peer editing process noted every single time a user finds his way to an editing Wikipedia page. The latter is against Wikipedia policy. When a user removes thoroughly footnoted scholarship and replaces it with an attempt to rewrite history to conform to the views of (say) Thomas Kettell, I will call the edits neo-Confederate mumbo jumbo. This is saying nothing about any individual but rather some words stuck in the Wikipedia database. 172 11:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statements I referred to as a personal attack were not your second "mumbo jumbo" comment but rather your first, which baselessly labelled my edits "neo-confederate." I also find it highly inappropriate that you made a good three or four comments suggesting that I was some sort of a repeat or banned user, all without basis, to apparently malign the validity of my grievances. That is inappropriate as well and what I referred to when I stated a long string of personal attacks. On the subject of Kettell etc. I suggest we take that up in the discussion forum once again if you are now inclined to use it. Rangerdude 20:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of American Nihilist Underground Society page

I did not establish this page, but I did add to it; a previous page about ANUS.COM the website existed, but not one about the organization American Nihilist Underground Society, which has been espousing nihilism through metal and post-alienist philosophy both on and off the web since 1987 (obviously, web stuff began in the early 1990s).

The American Nihilist Underground Society page was nuked for being a duplicate of a deleted page, but the page we had going was not about the site but the organization, and we never given a chance to develop or prove itself before it was deleted.

If WikiPedia seeks to catalog notable web movements, I think it makes sense to include ANUS, which is responsible for, among other things, the longstanding Heavy Metal FAQ and the article Philosophy in Heavy Metal, both of which are popular in the small but significant genre of underground metal, viz. death metal and black metal.

I ask the meditation committee to consider this request for reinstatement, especially when they note the acrimonious nature of Wiki participants in attacking the site and falsifying data about it before even admitting it might have a place on the site; the vote was far from unanimous that it should be deleted, before User:Neutrality stepped in, at least. Thank you.

above added at 03:31, 2005 Jan 17 by Prozak

• All (or almost all) of the keep requests were from blatant sockpuppets, users with either no edits at all or new users that day. The article was speedied because it had not survived its previous VfD, regardless of whether the content was changed between them. Since sockpuppet votes don't count, it would NOT have survived its second VfD either, and a week-long flame/troll/sockpuppet war with ANUS would not have done Wikipedia any good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "sockpuppet" is, but in your case it seems to mean people who come to WikiPedia to defend inclusion of an item. Most of us don't work on WikiPedia normally, but everyone has something they believe in, right? Also, the previous VfD was for a different article, one about the A.N.U.S. WEB SITE DOMAIN and not the A.N.U.S. ORGANIZATION, which predates the web. The "speedy delete" seemed to be aimed at quashing dissent. Also, there was no addressing the 1) incorrect Google totals posted 2) mainstream citations of ANUS work and 3) legitimacy of it as an enduring organization from the early days of the web and before. If I saw any of those being acted upon, I think I'd feel better about this; as said, I didn't create the original article, but did come to defend the organization as it has done quite a bit for its part of Internet culture. N.B.: the culture I speak of is one foreign to WikiPedians, but I'm trusting they are relatively free of "internet culturocentricism." Prozak 21:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The most traditional form of a sockpuppet is one person posting under multiple names to defend a point of view. On WP, sockpuppeting can also mean bringing outside help who aren't actual WP contributors. Such votes are ignored in the VfD process. The top of the VfD page states: Votes by suspected sock puppets or where it is not clear that they reflect genuine Wiki-ists opinions, may be ignored. To give you an example, if I put up an article about my high school football team, and it gets listed on VfD, and I enlisted help from friends and supporters (who are new to WP) to try to sway the vote my way, that would be one form of sockpuppeting. It wouldn't matter if I got hundreds of people involved, as the votes wouldn't count. Like I said above, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of ANUS passing VfD, and the week of turmoil that would have resulted would have been bad for both organisations. Let it be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • So you say, but lesser organizations are featured here, and "sockpuppet" seems to be a way of excluding those who don't kiss ass in the WikiPedia ingroup, thus suggesting WikiPedia is less of an encyclopedia than a social gathering for people who have "social problems" otherwise. I'd rather take WikiPedia seriously and suggest that those who came to defend the ANUS page were readers of WikiPedia who felt a silliness was being committed, and that the double standard of "sockpuppets" is defensive posturing from the WikiPedia team. 67.10.73.69 04:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over acceptance of other religions claiming to be Israelite and Hebrew

User:VChapman in conflict with User:Jayjg and other religious site watchers General concern is the misleading use of the redirect Page "Hebrew Christianity" I have attempted to make it a disamb page, but my changes had been removed. The page automatically assume all Hebrew Christians are Messianic Jews and Precludes Latter-Day Saints. I had also attempted to rename Christianity to "Traditional Christianity" and add a disamb page seperating again hebrew christianity and Catholic/Protestant based Faiths. Latter-Day Saints are by religious belief the House of Joseph under Jacob(Israel) and as such are Israelites and Hebrews. The Chrsitianity site also is misleading towards messianic judiasm. Contrary to popular belief, not all Hebrews are Jewish, or from Judah, and all Christians are not Israelites. I have treid to even include definitions and this is short of an edit war before I brough it to mediation.

(None of my busines but...) People find stuff in Wikipedia according to their PRIOR NAIVE beliefs and vocabulary. If a religion says XXX then say XXX on the page discussing that religion. It isn't possible to label everything according to everyone's diferent belief systems. If the dictionary doesn't define it the way a relgion does, the data can only go in that religion's page. Otherwise the article on God would have to be about every nut that thinks he's a God or becomes one when he dies (wink, wink).

User:Vacuum and User:Irate

Resolved without mediation. Vacuum c 23:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:GabrielF and User:Cautious

An anonymous user User:198.82.71.55, 198.82.71.55 has insulted User:Cautious on a couple of different occasions, once calling him "dimwitted." Cautious insists that this anonymous user is me (GabrielF) and he refuses to listen to me when I tell him it is not. Cautious' "evidence" is that I moved a couple of paragraphs of his onto the talk page on Elie Wiesel along with a note explaining why I had moved them. Three days later 198.82.71.55 posted an italicized note underneath my post supporting my decision to move the section to the talk page and calling Cautious "dimwitted." Why Cautious believes I would need to fake a new user to support my case and insult him when nobody had protested my decision to move the section to the talk page is unclear. Six days after that I reformatted that section of the talk page in order to make the headings clearer and while I was doing that I took the opportunity to add a little to my original explanation. Other than this I have had no interaction with Cautious at all. Furthermore, the IP in question is from Virginia Tech, which is a school I do not attend and have never posted from. Cautious has insisted on repeatedly vandalizing my User page, reporting me as a vandal, and complaining about me to admins. This is getting ridiculous and he is not listening to me so I hope that a mediator could demonstrate to him that I am not the one who has insulted him. I can't imagine this would take very long. GabrielF 01:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here you can find the final version of the respective section after the last edit of GabrielF Talk:Elie_Wiesel. As he declares, the whole section had been created by himself and he was the last editor of the section. The insulting sentence seemed to be authorised by the only person signed there, GabrielF. If somebody else had added the last sentence, it would have been anyway responsiblity of GabrielF to clearly assign the odd opinion to some stranger. It is sceptical way of reasoning. In matter of fact I am of opinion that 198.82.71.55 is IP address of sockpuppet of GabrielF used by him if he wants to insult somebody. Cautious 20:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's not a mediator's job to "demonstrate" anything to anyone -- it's their job to get two parties to talk politely to each other, and it's their job to try and guide the two parties into agreements that both are satisfied with. I am unclear what agreements the two of you hope to reach about each other -- please provide a list of things you would like to discuss (and possibly a list of agreements you hope to reach). Please also provide a list of mediators that would be acceptable to you from WP:MC. Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss on Intelligent Design

User has repeatedly and flagrantly violated no insults rule, no attacks in edit summary rule, and NPOV. Stirling Newberry 00:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition, Ungtss has violated the 3R rule and is a prolific creator of pages that do not belong in wikipedia (ie. comparison of views). Bensaccount 22:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Stirling, please follow the instructions I have written down for your other requests -- providing a list of issues you seek agreement on, notifying Ungtss, proposing possible mediators from WP:MC. Ungtss is asked to do the same, if he/she accepts mediation. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer and Stirling Newberry on Surrealism

User has flagrantly violated NPOV and vandalized documentable information on page. Request mediation. Stirling Newberry 00:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry may have violated NPOV in stating flat-out that surrealism is an artistic movement, which is documentably false (though my edits have included reference to claims surrealism is an artistic movement), but has vandalized documentable information on this page, some violating NPOV. For example, while mentioning Alexandian's (POV) claim that surrealism ended with Breton's death, he excises relevant Breton claim that surrealism would continue after him. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Since you both requested it against each other, can I assume you'll agree to mediate with each other? If so, please, each of you, post what agreements you hope to reach (and what issues you hope to resolve) at the end of a successful mediation. Please also post which mediators (from the list at WP:MC) you would prefer to work with. Hopefully this will get things started on the right foot. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshauschroeder in Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

Joshuaschroeder has engaged in numerous edits from the POV that creationism is wrong and mainstream science is correct. I have asked him to justify his POV edits, and his response was:

...I'm making no apologies for a) showing exactly why creationists are incorrect and b) removing POV editorialism from the scientific statements of fact. I don't care if Phil Rayment or Ungtss think that they are POV, they are definitely not. Consensus has been reached by people who actually study the subject. Phil and Ungtss are not scientists.

The example I gave in my question to him was his changing of:

• Mainstream scientists believe that the geological features we see today are the result of the same processes that we observe today

to:

• The geological features we see today are the result of the same processes that we observe today.

He has also written numerous POV statements such as the following:

• Creationism when falsifiable has been falsified. When creationism is not falsifiable it is not science.
• Creationist versions of these sciences are either inconsistent, incorrect, or unfalsifiable.
• The dimensions of the ark that the creationists think are reasonable are laughably small.

He has also removed various creationist arguments, leaving only the conclusions, giving the impression that creationists conclude things without reason, yet inserting extensive mainstream-science arguments. Several users have asked Joshuaschoeder to discuss these changes, or have disagreed with them, but he persists in doing them anyway, and dismissed the last request by Ungtss to discuss them (see the article's edit comment for about half an hour ago).
Philip J. Rayment 02:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have provided citations for my assertions. The page is set up to be a comparison of views. If under "mainstream science" I remove the comment "mainstream scientists believe" it's simply due to clarity. While "laughably" could be editted out, and I'm sorry if the occasional NPOV word or two slips in, I'm trying my best to edit a page that's in so much trouble it has been "totally disputed". I have offered a complete content overhaul and have removed problematic arguments that either do not compare well to point-in-fact argumentation, are just plain ridiculous, and never have citations to literature. What is left is a basic description of the debate instead of a dog-and-pony show free-for-all. I love it when people make good contributions, but so far most everyone either agrees with my edits or simply reverts. There is no attempt to actually edit the article to the satisifacation of NPOV.

There was a discussion earlier to delete the article. I'm still in favor of deletion, but if the article remains I'm going to make sure it is as NPOV as it possibly can be. Yes, mainstream science is NPOV, I don't care what creationists naysayers want to believe. This repository is not supposed to be set up as a place where anybody can present their original creationist research and not have it be editted. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. It appears to me from the above that you are both willing to mediate this dispute. Is that true? If so, please say so directly, and state what agreements you hope to reach at the end of a successful mediation (not what your evidence or complaints might be against the other party -- mediation is oriented on goals for the future that will prevent further dispute, not casting blame for past events). Please also look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and indicate if you have any preference for one or more of those mediators -- hopefully you can agree on an impartial mediator to hear the case. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Silverback on Intelligent Design

Accusations of not being able to discuss after backing a flame war. Stirling Newberry 15:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I find this confusing - please explain what agreements you want Silverback to agree to after a successful mediation. Please also notify Silverback that you have requested mediation, and list here any mediators from WP:MC that you would accept to handle this dispute. Silverback can do the same. Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

chocolateboy in Wanda Tinasky mostly and Donald Foster a bit

The two articles are approaching a revert war. In discussing changes with Chocolateboy, he has been rude, uncivil, and uncooperative. He engages in bombastic exaggerations against me and considers that counts as discussion on his part. He lists chunks of Wiki policy I allegedly have violated and does not bother to notice what the policies actually say, even after I point out relevant aspects. In particular, he ignores any and every substantive attempt to discuss NPOV, beyond simply saying all POVs are equal, in flat contradiction to what I've pointed out Jimbo Wales actually says.

I find nothing but bad faith on his part. --192.35.35.35 21:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Please list the agreements you hope to reach with chocolateboy, notify him that you are requesting mediation, and give at least one name from the list of mediators on WP:MC that you would be willing to let mediate the dispute. Chocolateboy can do the same if he accepts mediation. Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy vs RickK regarding St. Thomas University Students' Union

RickK kept re-directing this article to the University. A precedent had been previously set at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Students' Society of McGill University. I feel he has proposed it for deletion because he didn't get his way. And if he wins this vote, he may do it to all the other related articles in the category, or even other students' union articles. I would really appreciate this be resolved, especially since he is an administrator. I haven't spoken to him to get him to agree to mediation. --Spinboy 05:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'm confused -- the article he proposed for deletion wasn't deleted. Is there still a dispute to mediate? Sorry about the delay. Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

User:AndyL and I cannot agree on how a particular sentence should be worded. He insists on including POV, inflamatory commentary about another student organization. --Spinboy 06:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Spinboy, please make sure you have notified AndyL about your request for mediation. Then list here, not a list of evidence against Andy, but a list of the agreements you hope to reach with him. AndyL can come here and do the same, which will help the mediator understand what your goals are, and better mediate. Please also provide a list of mediators you would find acceptable (current mediators may be found at WP:MC) and Andy can do the same -- I hope you find a mutually acceptable mediator. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Palestine-info vs. User:Jayjg

A large number of content disputes at Ariel Sharon, B'Tselem, Coalition of the willing, Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, Israel, Khan Yunis, List of military occupations, Medical Aid for Palestinians, NGO Monitor, Palestinian People's Party, Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine and Yasser Arafat. Palestine-info 15:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Eagerly accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Excellent. I ask you both to list here the agreements you hope to reach in mediation -- not evidence of wrongdoing, but your goals for the future so that problems can be avoided. This will help the mediator guide you to a settlement of the dispute. Please also look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the names of those you would be willing to work with -- hopefully an agreeable choice for both of you will present itself. Thanks for your patience. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Agreements on article content. Mediators I choose in order of preference: Stevertigo, Cimon Avaro, Danny, Jwrosenzweig then the remaining mediators unordered. I won't be very active at Wikipedia for the coming month(s), but I will do my best to solve this. Palestine-info 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think article content is only the symptom of the problem. My real concern here is that this editor has created a userid solely for the purpose of political advocacy on behalf of Palestinians. As a result, he has consistently made POV edits which are unsupported by evidence, and often continues to make these edits even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and statements by many outside parties on Talk: pages that his edits are POV and erroneous. Even when RfCs draw in outside editors, and they tell him his edits are unwarranted, he persists in making them. While solving the article content issues would be helpful, I would like to solve the root cause, which I believe is a recognition that Wikipedia is intended to be a NPOV encyclopedia, not a soapbox for political advocacy. I would prefer Jwrosenzweig or Danny as mediators. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me as though I and Danny are the two consensus choices. I will consult with Danny about whether he is willing to take this case on, or if I will. If I am your mediator, we'll have a little slowdown getting started, as I'll be away from email this weekend, but otherwise it looks like you're almost ready to begin. Thanks for being reasonable about this -- either Danny or I will leave a note here accepting the case and giving initial instructions very soon. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I a happy to take this case. As always, I would prefer it if both parties were to send me an email summarizing their positions and where they see the problems. Danny 10:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:WikiUser and User:Violetriga

Moved from section below:

• User:WikiUser and User:Violetriga WikiUser 17:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note that: 1. I request that a reasonable person, including from people who are only readers and haven't edited before, to be a mediator. 2. People of goodwill please note that the userVioletriga is continuing to hassle and discriminate against me, despite the fact that I asked her to stick to the procedures of mediation once she'd agreed to mediation. She's demanding, in an offensive way, that I produce a summary right now despite the fact that I have told her repeatedly that I am partially disabled and it takes me a long time to type, do the necessary surfing and prepare a piece, and calling me a liar saying that I have not filed for mediation even though I have, as she called me a liar before when I asked her twice to go to mediation and she claimed I hadn't. I am of course sticking to mediation procedure and will produce a summary of my complaint as soon as I can reasonably do so.WikiUser 19:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can someone assist me with her hassling me as I try to write a summary-summaries are not compusarily-she is hassling me all the time and i asked her to stop this AND GO THRU MEDIATION! -she discriminating against me- she say my AND ONLY MY request will be deleted. She hassling me and I DISABLED!!!I seek assistance please from her bullying and hassling now as she preventing me from even doing mediation now with hassle. I've followed mediation ruels and her friend ChrisO change s EVERYTHING I do and has pager on and appeards seconds after everywhere i go. He's trying to drive me to suicide as i revealed on here his hassle for 7 months has made me suicidsa;l I can't visit wiki. few minutes edit and 4 hours hassle drom him and violet his friend i do. I seek some one protect me from nonstop hassle of him and vRiga.WikiUser 21:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(I made spelling mistakes above because of disablement which means unless I type slow, I make mistakes. I tidied it up perfectly last night but wiki seized as so often and tidt-up was lost and then my computer time was up.) I SEEK assistance, and have applied for an ADVOCATE, to stop UserChrisO from abusing the Mediation procedure by posting below in this way. Also he has left a lot of flames with false claims about my conduct on my user page and said:

"You also have no right to abuse Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures for your own ends, as in your frivolous arbitration request last August and the equally frivolous mediation request you've made this week."

What more responsible thing can I do to stop problems with other users than seeking mediation?! He has no right to stop me from going to mediation, and no right to threaten to "ban" me, "long term" which he has done on my talk page, simply because I apply for mediation! Where is the rule that says: "WikiUser is the only one on earth who can not apply for mediation and will be banned long term if he does so". HE is the only one breaking mediation rules with his post below and his threating me because I have sought mediation. He says he will ban me if I edit, even one word of any article, and now he is going to ban me because I seek mediation against him and his freinds' abuse of me!

He is preventing me from providing the edit log of my appeal re violetriga, as I have no time to download the histories or collate them, because he is hounding me, and now he will prevent my Mediation appeal re violetriga as he is banning me, he says, because I have filed for Mediation help!

He says he is: "I am preparing an RfC on this " as a "draft" against me-he must have time for this page of obsession with me, for which there is NO justification, but I, who have repeatedly noted I am disabled, can have NO time to prepare my Mediation appeal re violetriga, despite the fact that such preparation is the responsible and considerate thing to do. As a Mediator must have the relevant histories to work withWikiUser 15:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) At the top of this page it says: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case."

AGAIN I point out this page is for appealants to state their case. ChrisO is vandalising this page- will an Admin stop him please.WikiUser 21:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediators please note that a formal Request for Comments is underway concerning this user - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser - and that "Frivolous abuse of Wikipedia procedures" is one of the points of contention. -- ChrisO 01:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chris, your information may be relevant to a certain extent, but if violet is willing to mediate, your point poses no obstacle that I can see. WikiUser, please make sure that you have informed violet that you are requesting mediation. Please also explain what issues you wish to discuss, and what agreements you hope to reach, so that mediation can be more successful. List here any mediators from the list at WP:MC that you would find acceptable. Violet can come here and either reject the mediation, or accept it and offer her list of agreements sought and acceptable mediators. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept mediation because there isn't a dispute! As ChrisO says, see the RfC for the details on the situation. violet/riga (t) 22:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser, at this point, you can only request arbitration -- you should mention, if you do make such a request, that mediation has been refused, so that the AC does not reject the case for not having been mediated. Thanks for your patience. Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Axon vs. User:Bblackmoor

These two users have gone back and forth for months on the wiki topic Open gaming. Attempts to resolve the dispute through a WikiTruce, community consensus, and a survey have not been fruitful. These two users appear to be at an impasse. Third party help is solicited to settle the dispute, so that the two users can move on to less frustrating activities. The Talk:Open gaming page has all of the background information a mediator might need. Please help. If I understand the mediation guidelines correctly, the entry will be frozen at its most recent non-disputed revision, until we can come to some kind of agreement. Axon may disagree, but I think the most recent non-disputed revision of this page was made on 11:01, 2 Dec 2004 by User:Liftarn. Axon has been informed of the request for mediation. For myself, I have no preference of mediator: anyone willing to spend their time and energy to help resolve this is more than welcome to try. -- Bblackmoor 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There has been no response to this request, either from Axon or from anyone at Wikipedia, and Axon continues to post POV, remove factual information, and scramble the talk page, so I have gone ahead and requested arbitration. Consider this request for mediation withdrawn (although I would be happy to reconsider it, if Axon agrees to participate and agrees to be bound by the outcome). -- Bblackmoor 18:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As I think the arbitration request was denied (I may be wrong), I am leaving this up. Bblackmoor, if you want to request mediation again, please note that you are doing so here. I am sorry about the delay. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair

Ok, this isn't exactly a request for mediation in the traditional sense, but we do need an experienced and diplomatic person to help talk to this user about what appears to be a method of editing that is causing serious headaches for other users (User:Jakew and User:DanP to name two). Please see User talk:Robert Blair (sections Disguised Reverts onwards) for details of attempts to understand and resolve this problem. I apologise for making a request in an inappropriate forum, but haven't had much luck elsewhere, and you guys have the necessary skills to help. - Jakew 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Jake, I'm afraid this is confusing for me. Are you requesting a mediation process between yourself and Robert, or are you requesting a mediator to help resolve a dispute between Robert and someone else that you have attempted to settle? I can only set up mediation between two wiling parties, and if you are neither (but instead an interested 3rd party), I'd encourage you to get the two people here who need to be here. If you are requesting mediation with Robert, please clarify what the points are that you are seeking agreement on, so that mediation can be more fruitful. Also, please make sure you have notified Robert that you are seeing mediation with him, and offer here a list of mediators (look at WP:MC) that you would be willing to work with. Robert can note here if he accepts your offer of mediation, and hopefully he can agree with you on an acceptable choice to mediate. Jwrosenzweig 22:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:WikiUser versus User:ChrisO

I request someone reasonable to be a Mediator in the dispute this user has caused. Please note, I have requested an ADVOCATE in this matter and will users please note that UserChrisO has threatened to ban me from the wiki so that I can't proceed with my Mediation appeal against him or violetriga. Will any users of goodwill please check that I am not banned, and will any responsible Admin unblock/try to un-ban me if he does do this. Thanks.WikiUser 16:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediators please note that a formal Request for Comments is underway concerning this user - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiUser - and that "Frivolous abuse of Wikipedia procedures" is one of the points of contention. -- ChrisO 01:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Chris, I am going to need you to be more clear -- are you rejecting this offer of mediation because you feel it is frivolous? That is how I understand your remark. If you are willing to enter mediation, please clarify this point. If mediation is not accepted, then WikiUser, your next step would be to begin an arbitration case at WP:RFAR. Jwrosenzweig 22:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - I think it would be a waste of time and an abuse of process to take this to mediation. Like violetriga, I don't think there's anything to mediate here. -- ChrisO 23:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Emax vs. User:Chris 73

Requests for mediation - for which reason, please see details on: [3]. Thank you--Emax 02:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I see no details at the link you provided. RickK 22:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Emax, for mediation, it is not really vital to have evidence of Chris's alleged wrongdoing....that's an arbitration matter. What is most important is that you explain what you hope to have an agreement on -- that way the mediator can help you and Chris understand what you each are hoping for, and hopefully can guide you both to reaching an understanding between each other. Please post here what you hope to reach an agreement on. Also, please look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the mediator or mediators you would like to have hear this dispute. If you have not yet told Chris that you have requested mediation, please let him know. Chris, once you see this, please note whether or not you accept mediation. If you accept it, please offer the points on which you feel you and Emax need to understand each other, and the list of mediators you would accept. Once you can agree on a mediator and the issues needing mediation, you can be on your way. Jwrosenzweig 22:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emax, for mediation, it is not really vital to have evidence of Chris's alleged wrongdoing - well, the Arbitration Committee because i dont tried to solve the problem in other way, rejected my request.

What is most important is that you explain what you hope to have an agreement on - some consequences for his behavior.

If you have not yet told Chris that you have requested mediation - he already know that :)

Also, please look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the mediator or mediators you would like to have hear this dispute. - i dont know the people listed there so.. i will accept everyone who instead of thanking him for his work on wiki, will also have the opinion that such rasistic behavior - espescially for an admin - is not acceptable.--Emax 14:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Emax, thanks for replying, and for your patience. Your comments, though, are suggesting to me that I need to be very clear about mediation -- mediation is not a case where a mediator will come in, talk to you both, and then impose "consequences" on anyone. The mediator's task is to aid you both in communicating so that you do not have trouble in the future. Any consequences need to be agreed to by both you and Chris. If you already knew this, please forgive my unnecessary explanation. As you are apparently open to having any user mediate, we will wait to see if Chris accepts, and, if so, if there is any mediator that he would prefer. Thanks for your note. Jwrosenzweig 15:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if Emax understands the mediation process correctly. My feeling is that Emax has a gripe against me due to some edit wars including 3RR blocks, and tries to punish me (including a rejected Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (rejected by all committee members), listing me on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (reverted three times), and a (rejected/idle) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection claiming that I started an edit war). The accusations are based on some inappropriate wording, for which I have long since apologized. Other accusations are about actions of mine that are completely in accordance with the Wikipedia policy (i.e. reverting Emax while he was doing block evasion). In sum, I think the accusations are without ground, and also that the mediation process is not the right place. A mediation would probably waste the time of all parties involved.

However, if a mediator thinks mediation may help, I would be willing to participate. Possible topics would be content disputes, for example if Lucas David was Prussian or Polish. The use of Gdansk/Danzig is also one of the disputes, but that involves more users than just the two of us. But again, since Emax apparently wants mediation against me instead of between us, combined with his unwillingness to compromise, I have serious doubts about the success of the mediation. Also, for the record, Emax did not inform me of ANY of the actions he took against me, and I only found out through my watchlist. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

A major vote is underway at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which should solve some of the conflicts. I would like to encourage everybody to vote. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert the Bruce vs User:Exploding Boy

Note: This is a repost. It appears that the MC in finally getting its act together and may agree to assist by addressing this issue. From the original request:

Exploding Boy has instigated both and RfC and a request for Arbitration against me. Together with this he has made a number of allegations which are contrived. I believe that the source of this animosity towards me lies in a fundamental difference in POV. His POV position has become even more evident recently. My belief is that he has behaved atrociously and as an admin has brought the office of admin/sysop into disrepute. Through this mediation I hope to reach an understanding with Exploding Boy that he ceases to abuse the systems of Wikipedia as a means to neutralise those with whom he has a POV disagreement. Should the mediation fail I intend to take this issue to the AC with the view of having him stripped of admin/sysop position. - Robert the Bruce 18:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Robert the Bruce 06:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Robert. You've explained above the issues you hope to discuss and reach agreement on -- have you notified EB that you are requesting mediation with him? Also, can you provide the names of a mediator (or mediators) from WP:MC that would be acceptable to you? It is much appreciated. Hopefully EB will come here soon and note whether he accepts or rejects. Jwrosenzweig 15:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Robert it looks to me from the archive as though your last request to mediate with EB did not fail because the MC didn't have its act together, but rather because he refused mediation. Is there a reason you believe he will have changed his mind in the last 2 weeks about mediating with you? I don't know what the guidelines are for how soon mediation can be re-requested, but this does seem an unusual case. You certainly don't have to supply any rationale, but I find it curious why, since you obviously have arbitration in mind as an end, you are requesting mediation with a user who has already refused. Any information may be helpful to your eventual mediator, should EB accept. Jwrosenzweig 15:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Ah but Mr Rosenzweig you were quoted on my arbitration page that the MC was disfunctional and would not have been able to assist in any event. As you did not contest your being quoted there we must assume that you agree. So why the about face now? As to why I resubmitted a request for mediation maybe it was to see if you would send a message to Exploding Boy urging him to comply with the dispute resolution procedures. But you did not ... you rather question me. As I thought, thanks for nothing. - Robert the Bruce 01:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Robert, I'm sorry you felt I was unfair in my remarks. I didn't mean them that way at all, nor do I think I've done an "about face". There was a suggestion about mediation on your arbitration page, and I felt it needed to be noted that mediation was then broken. Now that I'm looking back at your request directly, it looks to me as though, broken or fixed, EB doesn't want to mediate. I think it's a shame, but it's not any mediator's task to cajole or push someone into mediation. EB has to come willingly, or else the odds that he is actually going to discuss productively with you are slim. That's why I found it curious that you were trying to mediate with him again so soon -- I don't think there's anything wrong with it! I hope he will agree to mediate. But it's not my place to get him to "comply" -- refusing to mediate, while a sad thing in my opinion, is not a refusal to comply with our procedures. I hope you will drop him a note, as perhaps some polite words from you would encourage him to mediate. But I don't think I can talk him into it. If he won't respond here, though, I'll certainly drop him a note in a few days to see if I can at least get an answer for you. Again, my apologies if you thought I was being rude to you: I hadn't intended it so. Jwrosenzweig 20:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I sorry John but I don't buy your bona fides. I would have thought it would have been obvious to even the densest of people that it was more strange that your EB would be would be refusing mediation whilst complaining that I was reluctant to enter into mediation with alacrity. You see John in the real world I am surrounded by intelligent people who are appropriately quick on the uptake ... very different from those who have risen to positions of influence around here. Wikipedia deserves better. - Robert the Bruce 18:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In the real world, those quick on the uptake either call me James, my actual first name, or else nothing at all. I will respond no further here to your insults. I will ask another mediator to handle the assigning of someone to this case, should Exploding Boy choose to mediate with you. Goodbye Robert. Jwrosenzweig 22:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For everyone's information, Robert the Bruce, editing under any account name or IP, has just been blocked for a year for his disruptive edits. This request for mediation can therefore be removed, and no further action need be taken. Exploding Boy 23:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:Kevehs and User:Sam Spade

I have been unable to communicate with this user since I first encountered them, and feel they lack Wikipedia:Civility. I am requesting mediation as part of the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't join Sam in requesting mediation, as the requisite steps that are supposed to come in the process prior to requesting it have not yet been attempted. I would therefore think this yet another example of Sam abusing wiki procedures whenever doing so would appear to produce the results he desires. However, I will happily take part in this procedure if said mediator hopes some good will come of it, and perhaps it will help clarify the reasoning behind Sam's behavior. Kev 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kev, I'm getting mixed messages from your post -- do you refuse mediation (on the grounds that you believe this is premature) or do you accept (I think mediators always hope good will come of the discussions they facilitate)? I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. Jwrosenzweig 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept and take part sincerely should there be a mediator who thinks they can help resolve the issue. That is my only condition. However, I think it is important to note that my personal position is that it is premature (given that the standard procedures were not followed), and I certainly don't want to waste anyones time if mediators agree that this is premature or believe that the issue is intractable. Kev 22:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given the above, are there any mediators willing to pursue this matter? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchism

I request a mediator or two look into Talk:Anarchism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_19

Votes for Deletion has been a bit crowded lately, because a number of users (myself included) have been categorizing the entire Dead End Pages and Bio-Stub sections. A small number of those are nominated for deletion. Most of them pass (or fail) without problem. However, the nomination of some high school stubs has once more sparked the debate on whether high schools are by definition notable or not. This is not what I'm asking mediation about, though.

User:David Gerard, however, takes the dispute one step further, by repeatedly claiming that nominations are violations of Wikipedia policy, and that, because said nominations, my account is to be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Since he is an Arbitrator and thus capable of banning users, I would appreciate quick mediation in this case before it gets out of hand.

This isn't a case of simple vandalism, and the users being accused by David have made valuable contributions in the past. I should also point out that David has not contacted me in any way before repeatedly suggesting that I be deleted.

Thank you for your time. Radiant! 12:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, have you spoken to David Gerard about this matter and/or requesting mediation? I believe David Gerard to be a reasonable user, and he will not "delete" your account without a proper reason, were account deletion even possible. Andre (talk) 03:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Earlier this week, I have left a message on his talk page explaining myself and asking why he wants me deleted. He has not responded, but I hope he'll do so yet. I hope you understand I find it frightening to be threatened with deletion by an Arb, hence my request here. Radiant! 10:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• And Gerard has responded now, stating that I had 'gone batshit' and that my English skills are insufficient to allow me to vote on VfD. He also claims that asking on VfD for people to be deleted is common practice, which I'm pretty sure it's not. (this discussion is on his talk page) Radiant! 10:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• It is not just about me - Gerard has made similar allegations against User:Preisler here, and less so against User:Grider here and here. Gerard seems to hold the opinion that any VfD nomination on which he would vote 'keep' is against WP policy, and grounds for censuring the nominator. Radiant! 22:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

Archived and ongoing cases

• Andre Engels and Noisy *
  • No one agreed to mediate. Andre said it was ok to close the case.

• User:Jewbacca vs. User:Auto movil
  • Danny will mediate.

• Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, Saint Andrew, Jesus
  • Grunt agreed to mediate.

• User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Adam_Carr
  • No one willing to mediate. Case closed as unsuccessful.

• Artificial consciousness
  • Danny said he would mediate. Cimon was also contacted.

• User:Ambi and User:Everyking
  • Mediation declined.

• Deaf
  • Mediation declined.

• User:Robert the Bruce vs User:Exploding Boy
  • Mediation declined.

Archives

/Archive 0
/Archive of summaries
/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9
/Archive 10
/Archive 11
/Archive 12
/Archive 13
/Archive 14