Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Ryu (Street Fighter)[edit]

Locke Cole has constantly vandalized the Ryu (Street Fighter) page by removing the following trivia...

Some officially created works, such as the 1993 Malibu Comics' Street Fighter series, and Masaomi Kanzaki's Street Fighter II manga, suggest that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple—a concept that has been a point of contention among fans.

...based strictly on his own personal desires and not on policy. He's attempted to label the trivia with several names to justify this, such as fancruft, fanfiction, and original research; I have clearly disproven all of these claims on the discussion page. The user has simply ignored that and continued to edit.

He has also immaturely launched a personal attack on the discussion page.

In the absence of having any reason related to policy on his side, he's attempted to claim having a consensus of the above trivia, when this too isn't true. It was for the previous entry he was disputing (though only a consensus of two people), but I have since changed the entry to the above with the cited sources. Still, he will not yield, despite having nothing valid to support his stance. He also has refused to explain his reasoning when asked to.

This user is simply being stubborn and immature, refusing to relent or acknowledge the inaccuracy of his claims and simply continuing to edit when proven wrong. I would greatly appreciate intervention in the form of a warning or other such message to this user. Thank you. -- James26 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: moved from bottom of page where I believe it was placed in mistake. Does not appear to be acted on yet. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Flcelloguy, feel free to take this case. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted both users. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
James26 is attempting to argue against the consensus view of this particular edit. After he denied a consensus existed, I opened a poll (see Talk:Ryu (Street Fighter) and Talk:Chun-Li, the poll is on both pages). So far the poll is running in favor of keeping this particular edit out. I tried to explain, in good faith, why I believe it should be out, but it seemed he was more interested in trying to attack my arguments than understand them. The poll (again on both talk pages listed above) doesn't close for another few days, at which time I will consider the matter resolved (be it with or without that edit). --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, contrary to the instructions above, this user did not contact me to indicate that mediation was being sought. I would not have started the talk page polls (as in my previous comment, above) if I'd known mediation was being sought. FWIW, I do not believe mediation is appropriate at this point with the poll in place as I am willing to live with whatever outcome results from it (assuming no sockpuppets show up). --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, while some polls are evil, trying to achieve community consensus is the right thing to do in this case. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians[edit]

This page discusses the arguments for Egyptians being black, white, whatever. One user inserted a link to which, as far as I can tell, has a lot of information. He has subsequently left the article. The site is also racist at some points. User:deeceevoice and User:DreamGuy continue to remove this link, saying it is "white supremacist". I asked at the villagepump and the consensus was that even white supremacist links should be included in wikipedia, and that removing them is NPOV. I've tried to work this out with the other users but to no avail. Can someone help out in this dispute? - 15:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to mediate here, if all parties are willing. I conduct mediation by email in the first instance. If these three users (, deeceevoice and DreamGuy) are happy for mediate, they can email me. sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. A note of acceptance on here would also be acceptable. I don't imagine this being a complicated mediation. [[Sam Korn]] 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing to mediate here. The anon user keeps inserting a link to a racist, unencyclopedic website trying to portray it as if it were the standard position among "Eurocentrists" -- which on that page is what the people who believe the Ancient Egyptians were black call the mainstream scholars who say that that's unsupported by the evidence. NPOV policy clearly states that fringe views cannot be listed out of proportion to how well they are accepted, and considering that that would be the only link off that page and vastly distort readers' perceptions of the controversy -- by linking mainstream scholars to white supremacists -- having the link there would be an obvious violation of NPOV rules, not to mention policies on citing reliable sources. The whole point is to come up with a consensus, and it's notable here that the person who I consider to be pushing a hugely Afrocentrist view on that page also agrees with me that the link is inappropriate. Both sides of the controversy agree that the link is inappropriate, regardless of what some anon user misrepresenting the facts got some people on Village Pump to say to him. It's already over and done with. DreamGuy 03:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, please provide criteras, to tell that site is racist, so it can be applied to other sites as well. Second, this article is about controversy, so readers shold be informed about such 'controversional' views too. And, so caled 'reputable' sources constantly avoid any race related material, doing their best to withhold race information from news, etc. AlV 09:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at I saw no evidence of serious scholarship, e.g., citation of articles in mainstream journals. Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on DreamGuy's comment ("there's nothing to mediate"), it seems he's not willing to enter into mediation. Thanks anyway. I guess we'll have to go to arbitration (whatever that is). The reversions continue. Request withdrawn. - 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The reversions continue because consensus was reached and multiple editors have agreed that the link is inappropriate. The only people in disagreement are a couple of random anonymous accounts and a new editor who has inappropriately placed white supremacist info and links on several articles -- for all I know, these anon accounts and User:AlV are all the same person. And you can't just skip straight to arbitration, not that you have a case anyway. :sighs: DreamGuy 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Iraq War[edit]

I and others are in disagreement with User:Reddi and others regarding the Iraq War article. The debate centers around the proper use for the article: does the term "Iraq War" refer only to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or from the invasion up to the end of the occupation of Iraq and the turnover of "sovereignty." Reddi's definition views the "War" as merely a historical reference, and defers to views which are similar to the official US line. This usage appears to be in direct contradiction to common use for the term, and even pro-war commentators use the "Iraq War" term in reference to the ongoing violence, rather than just the invasion/occupation. Reddi rests his overall conclusion on selective terms, for which his definitions are suspect of POV. -St|eve 05:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried other methods of dispute resolution? Ah I see you've left notes on Reddi's talk page. First off I'd like to see if Reddi would be interested in accepting mediation. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that this dispute hinges on more than one thing, which is why it doesn't "turn" easily:
  1. Was it a "war" or an "invasion"?
  2. When does an "invasion" turn into a "war"?
  3. What difference, if any, is there between "invasion", "combat", "occupation", "resistance", "civil war", "insurgency", "revolution", etc? These terms are almost certainly used differently by (1) professional military men, (2) historians, (3) diplomants and (4) politicians, activists and other partisans.
I'd like to help with this, but I think I'll stay out except as an observer. I don't think I can prove to the various Wikipedians involved, that I'm a "disinterested party" since for one thing I spent 5 years in the U.S. military and have generally positive feelings towards America. --Uncle Ed 13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
That's OK, but I should state that I wouldnt have much of a problem with you Ed, because 1) I believe you understand the importance of the prime directive within the context of this project and 2) how the above supercedes personal notions of "positive feelings" etc. and 3) you are deferential to reasoned arguments (ie. the "propaganda" issue on T:VNW), and 4) can access community support to help in matters you feel exceed your ability to deal with. -St|eve 19:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: I should add that the slowness of the MC to respond here is a problem. Reddi had recently rewritten the entire lead section, which though somewhat attempting NPOV, was of poor enough quality to incite a cleanup flag. Indeed, while Reddi may wish to claim this is a conduct dispute, I think its more an issue where he must defer to editors who are better able to express themselves in the English language. -St|eve 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Slow to respond? Sorry I've been offline for a while, but we can't do anything until Reddi accepts the mediation! It doesn't make sense to mediate between people when one person isn't even listening. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

User:FuriousFreddy and User:OmegaWikipedia[edit]

User:OmegaWikipedia has been cauing trouble for myself and several editors, in reguards to their attempts to cleanup legnthy music articles written by him, filled with POV, fan-magazine language, and a lack of conciseness. He resits any changes to "his" articles that he does not agree with, resulting in edit and revert wars with users such as User:Extraordinary Machine, User:Mel Etitis, and he appears prepared to drag myself into one as well. He complains that I "yell" and "rant" without telling him what's wrong, when in fact I have informed him what is wrong several times, in long and explicit detail, for the better part of a year: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, User talk:OmegaWikipedia/Old Comments, User talk:OmegaWikipedia/Old Comments Part 2, and User talk:OmegaWikipedia. He responds to people telling him he's doing wrong with dramatic replies, accusations of "not liking" the music or musician in question, accusations of harboring some sort of "personal vendetta" against him, of being biased against new music, and the erroneous accusation of not informing him what is wrong.

I am not sure if he actually pays attention when people tell him what's wrong, or if he simply prefers people tell him what's wrong with each article each and every time (which should essentially result in my simply having to copy and paste the same response over and ovcer again). He in fact demands that he be informed of any changes to "his" articles when they are being cleaned up. There are also issues with the disagreement of perons working to condense articles for songs (for example, We Belong Together) filled with excessive detail, and long lists of multiple chart positions and remixes, to the point that the article is hard to read and does not reflect Wikipedia's quality standards. I have never run into an issue such as this where users refuse to allow cleanups to "their" articles, and take such possessive ownership of them. This results in my being dragged into back-and-forth debates, which last for hours (or even days) with no resolution. I don't know if he prefers making enemies over the Internet, but I am not about to become his, or allow him to consider me as his.

Another related proble involves his and several others' vote-stuffing on AfD. Several unneccessary articles have been written, including some on the characters from the film Glitter and seperate articles on songs that Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Whitney Houston, and others have covered (resulting in seperate versions of, for example, "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" or "The Star-Spangled Banner".

Hoping to prevent direct blame towards him in particular, I filed the RfC above as a general issue referring to the articles in question; no sort of consensus has come of it. My instinct and common sense tells me to simply leave him and those beleaguered articles alone (which, of course goes against the very principles of the Wikipedia). Since he seems to think I don't like him, and he therfore refuses to listen to me, perhaps someone else could get through with him.

I'm not the only person to tr to get through to him, but I've made probably the most valiant effort. However, I honestly have better things to do than to argue with people over possession of Wikipedia articles. There are other articles that need work, and that can be improved without conflict, and there are better things that I could be doing outside of WIkipedia as well. I don't want to clean these articles up or inforce my own personal views on them, all I want is for them to be cleaned up to conform to encyclopedic standards, and be readable, neutral in tone, unbiased, concise, and clear.

Perhaps modern popular music, attracting the interests of persons such as him, will never be accurately covered here in readable articles tha agree with all standards of Wikipedia editing and encyclopedic standards in general. In such a case, if it means relieving myself of stress and valuable time wasted, then leaving hundreds of Wikipedia articles broken and in a poor state of quality is the only reasonable decision I can make unless definitive is done about this issue. This is my last attempt at resolution before blissfully ignoring the problem becomes the main directive. --FuriousFreddy 18:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave a message at Omega's talk to see if he'll accept. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
OmegaWikipedian says he's not rejecting or accepting as of now, but he may accept soon, so I'll just template this to save space... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il[edit]

At issue is how the article should refer to this person who is essentially the dictator of North Korea. The issue has spurred ample debate and several 3RR violations over the past year or more; a final decision upon which all editors can agree is desperately needed. Calling him "dictator" has been determined to be POV. Some editors insist on calling him "leader" while others demand to call him "ruler", and each side claims the other term is POV due to nuances in meaning. Phrasings which describe the man's titles without using the terms "dictator", "leader", or "ruler" have been rejected as being too complicated. Users most directly involved in the conflict: User:Appleby, User:172, User:SqueakBox, User:Adam Carr. I have been trying to find consensus, but have been unsuccessful. OnWiki mediation seems appropriate. - Brian Kendig 04:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I will take this on, if Appleby, 172, SqueakBox, Adam Carr and Brian Kendig are willing. However, I prefer to mediate by email initially, so I hope this is OK. Please leave a note here to all the above parties if you are willing to take part in this mediation. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 17:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
i am willing to participate & be bound by mediation. brian kendig is still working hard to discuss our way out of the mess, but we need something the other side will commit to, because previous attempted compromises were reverted. Appleby 17:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to engage in such a process if there are enough editors on both sides also willing. Perhaps some idea of what mediation would actually involve would be useful at this point, SqueakBox 17:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. The way I work is to start by getting everyone to email me a statement. I then prepare a "statement of common ground". Then I help the parties to analyse their differences and figure out a compromise. This may include group emails, IRC, or any other course. As a mediator and an administrator, I undertake not to use any administrative functions in the course of the mediation. All of these rules, with the exception of the last one, are flexible and can be bent to fit the circumstances. The other unbendable rule is: everyone must be happy with the outcome. [[Sam Korn]] 18:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through the procedures of mediation. So I will simply stop editing the article and participating in the discussions on the talk page, regardless of how inaccurate the material in the introduction becomes. 172 | Talk 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am likewise unenthusiastic about further arguments over this article. As I have said in the debate at the article, I know Wikipedia has a left-wing bias and I either have to accept that or leave. My views are set out clearly in the debate, but I am willing to live with the opening paragraph as it stands. (The real solution to this problem, by the way, is for someone to rule that anyone who holds power in a state without having been elected to power, and is not a hereditary monarch, is a dictator, and should be called such.) Adam 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what exactly is preventing this (calling a dictator a dictator) at wikipedia. I am disheartened by 172's statement and I would rather see him stay with the article than go through with the mediation, SqueakBox 02:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If I were still editing the article, I'd take a somewhat more moderate position than Adam. The problem with the term dicator is that once it starts to get used in clear cases, users will want to use the term to refer to just about any nonndemocratic leaders whom they dislike. More neutral, less politicized terms like "ruler," though, can be used. 172 | Talk 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

the answer to all three is Wikipedia:Verifiability:"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false," & the demonstrated fact that overwhelming majority of reputable sources identify kim jong il as "leader." i am still puzzled by this argument by personal opinion or "original research," as if they are responses to citations. so are we mediating, or are we done? Appleby 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And what if the reputable or credible sources are wrong? The use of PC euphemism is unfortunately widespread in reference works and acedemic publishing, since timid publishers are unwilling to publish anything that anybody might possibly disagree with. Wikipedia doesn't have this problem, and can tell the truth - that's one of the reasons why it is worth writing for. That's why we should call a dictator a dictator, or at the very least not call him a "leader." Nelson Mandela is a leader, Kim Jong-il is a dictator. If Appleby can't or won't see the difference I'm sorry for him/her.

then you create your own online encyclopedia with a different policy, instead of coming here & reverting people following wikipedia policy. in your encyclopedia, you can have people cite their personal conviction of truth, but here, citations to other encyclopedias & reputable newspapers win. are we mediating or are we done? Appleby 14:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the parties aren't interested in mediation =-\ Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages[edit]

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the above page 60+ times in the last two months.

Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Wikipedia general editing principles.

He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical State and David Evan Pedley.

When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alledges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.

Johnski does not follow the rules of Wikipedia and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Wikipedia, and should be curtailed.

Users complaning about Johnski's behavior:

Making a Complaint against the following:

Davidpdx 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, this doesn't really seem like a dispute where mediation is likely to be useful. Mediation needs both parties involved and willing. If Johnski is willing to allow mediation, it might be possible. However, your phrase "complaning about Johnski's behavior" suggests it's belief in one user's bad behaviour rather than a dispute about article content. [[Sam Korn]] 17:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:RFC. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Johnski is willing as far as I know to accept mediation. Frankly I'm disappointed with your response. This has been a chronic problem that no one has been willing to help with. The problem I have, is those that are moderators (and in this case the mediation committee) seem to do little or nothing to help when there is a legitimate problem with vandalism. I've reported Johnski numerous times for 3RR violation. Has he been banned? Of course not! I have also asked for a IP check, to see who a bunch of diffrent users are, some of which we believe are sockpuppets Johnski uses. Again I wasn't able to get a response back.
So my question back to you is, why in the heck should anyone care about people who trash good articles on Wikipedia, when nothing is done? Please tell me what you think should be done? I'm honestly sick of nothing being done. I don't mean to be pissy, but I'm quite frustrated. Davidpdx 03:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
To answer your question about my mention of Johnski's behavior, it is partly that because he fails to follow the rules. Wouldn't you agree that is a behavioral issue? Yes, to some extent there is a "content dispute" in that the content Johnski and his many sockpuppets have been inserting material aganist consensus and without out proper documentation. I hope that clarifies the question. Davidpdx 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note origional request for mediation has been updated. Davidpdx 08:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for mediation based on the fact that the mediation committee refuses to hear the case. Davidpdx 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy Griffith Show and User:Hackwrench (POV dispute)[edit]

For the past month, User:Hackwrench has been inserting opinion about how The Andy Griffith Show is "morally questionable." A RfC discussion has been completely unanimous about whether or not his contribution is appropriate for Wikipedia. (One user edited his rambling points into a concise, readable form, but acknowledged that this was only an attempt to end the edit war, and agreed that the article would be improved by its absence.) User has stated his intent to edit more A&E articles with his ethical analysis. When it was pointed out to him that his contribution does not meet the NPOV "undue weight" test, his response was to declare the "undue weight" guideline "ridiculous." It seems unlikely at this point that the dispute can be resolved without mediation. Thank you. Larry Mudd 23:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There was no "RfC discussion". A request for comments was made but the 4 or 5 commenters expressed disapproval before the RfC was made. I did not declare the "undue weight" guideline ridiculous. However I did declare his interpretation of the "undue weight" guideline ridiculous. Hackwrench 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I further note that Larry Mudd's sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to revert my changes. Hackwrench 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hackwrench, every single comment on the Talk page, apart from those made by you, before and after the RfC, has been against your idiosyncratic contribution. How many comments have been made in support of it? Zero. Most people would concede that that indicates a consensus.

I am curious as to how you personally interpret the "undue weight" requirement. It seems like a rather simple thing to construct a syllogistic argument using the terms therein. ie; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. No prominent adherents can be cited for views you wish to insert into the article. If a viewpoint is held by an insignificant minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Therefore, this POV doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except possibly in its own article.) How can you interpret it otherwise? You must either reject the premises in the NPOV FAQ, or justify the inclusion of the POV by making reference to its notable proponents. (Hint: Satirical magazines and web reviews don't qualify.)

Yes, I am a new contributor, and most of my edits so far have been corrections to the TAGS article. After passively using WP as a reference for several years, this was the first article I've stumbled across that was, at a glance, incoherant and bizarre enough to motivate me to begin actively editing. I have not merely reverted your changes -- there have been minor edits to the article that have nothing to do with your contribution. If you are implying that I only signed up to persecute you, I can assure you that I intend to stick around and make more significant contributions -- I am currently working on a draft of my first article, about an important event in the history of my city for which there is currently no entry. I am still gathering material, and will post the article when it's ready. I don't want to rush it, because (with all due respect) I hope that it'll be a little more comprehensive and comprehensible than the sort of contribution that you make. Larry Mudd 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence says, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Note that this does not say that minority views should have no description whatsoever. The phrase you like so much, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" has the word "should". That means, "is most likely the case". Also the word "prominent" isn't a very concrete term.

No, I do not think you are attacking me personally. However you seem to be vehemently against to position stated.

I generally expect newly started articles to be of lower quality as it takes time for them to get their legs, so to speak. [Hackwrench]

>Note that this does not say that minority views should have no description whatsoever.

No, that particular line does not. However, the relevant portion that I have quoted for you provides a guideline for differentiating between insignificant personal opinions and significant minority viewpoints. This is an encyclopaedia article about a light entertainment program, not a colloquium on ethics that uses the program as a starting point. Much more controversial programs, such as All in the Family, (which is to a large degree about social issues), are free from sections of opinion about whether the values represented by the program are "good" or "bad" -- because such debates do not belong in an encyclopaedia. It's not that no-one has any opinions about the program. It's that opinions don't belong here, unless the controversy is high-profile enough to actually be part of the subject, in which case some effort should be made to neutrally present them.

I am anything but vehemently against the position stated. If we were having a cup of coffee and talking about The Andy Griffith Show, there are several points on which I would agree with you. These points aren't really specifically about The Andy Griffith Show, though -- they apply equally to practically all of the homogeneous television fare of the '50s and '60s, which are a reflection of the mainstream culture of the times, or perhaps of urban California and New York.

The main source of the disagreement between you and the people who keep removing the content you want inserted into the article is whether or not it's appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Period. You want to include sections on how The Andy Griffith Show strikes people of different ideologies. You're not writing about the show, you're writing about how an ideology relates to it. There would be some justification for this if TAGS was a notable touchstone for debate over ethics. If there were significant vocal factions of people who were specifically concerned with the ethics of this television show, then it would make sense to include their varying points-of-view and some context for the controversy. However, there has never been a signficant movement of people who ask themselves WWAD? (One seminar in one small church is fodder for an "Odd News" item, but not a debate.) There has never been a vociferous group declaiming TAGS as a source or sign of moral decay. There is no controversy -- there is only insignificant opinion on either side.

If all contributors used your interpretation of NPOV, every single article in Wikipedia would be a bloated mess containing every passing thought or opinion related to the subject. This is not good for a reference resource -- articles must be succinct and concise, without meandering off-topic into areas that are not directly connected to the subject. Opinion only becomes part of the subject when there is considerable controversy over it which is itself noteworthy. If there's not, you leave it out -- otherwise, every article would become a back-and-forth over the contributing editors' value systems -- or even passing fancies.

None of this serves the reader, who no doubt has their own worldview and is just looking for straightforward information about a particular subject. Personal opinions belong on personal webpages, blogs, newsletters, and T-shirts, if you go that way. There is no room for them in an encyclopaedia.

At any rate, I have articulated this before, and I don't really expect you to get it this time. Similarly, you have expressed your belief that your contribution is appropriate several times, and I don't imagine you will be convincing any of the people who feel otherwise any time between now and the crack of doom, so it's probably a waste of time to keep discussing this. I think it's been hashed out more than enough for a neutral party to make a simple pronouncement, and it's just cruel to dedicate this much verbiage to a relative triviality. We should just wait for some guidance, and agree to follow it when it comes. Larry Mudd 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth I would agree this needs mediation. Hackwrench does seem to have some difficulty understanding what NPOV is in this case. If there were some citations offered to support the idea of the morally questionable nature of this show I would have to reconsider my position. In fact when this was submitted to RfC, Rd232 made this point by saying,

The "Morally Questionable" section is unsustainable if it can't be changed to report real-world discussions of these issues - X said Y about this aspect or episode. (And of course X would need to be someone reasonably notable.)

The only thing offered to support this position has been the personal opinion of Hackwrench. There are no real-world discussions of these issues cited. Of the four links put on the talk page for the article two are references to a series of bible study lessons used by churches that are built around the moral lessons found in the show. One is to a website for Modern Drunkard magazine and the other to a web review of the series on a site called Need Coffee. Both of these seem to be a bit tongue in cheek. I would question whether these sources could be considered reasonably notable.

I did attempt to edit the page at one point to be more appropriate while still acknowledging the points mentioned by Hackwrench. However, it is still not satisfactory simply because nothing has been offered to support the idea that this show is controversial in any way. Ee60640 22:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Jimmy Carter and Nobs01[edit]

In the article Jimmy Carter user User:Nobs01 seems to be mounting a POV campaign. I have made two reverts so far. I see he has other POV cases pending and thought I would just add this to the fray. Trying to discuss with him seems pointless as he seems to have an agenda which he will not back down from. All his contributions deserve a review. googuse 18:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

University of Ottawa[edit]

User:Anakinskywalker keeps attacking me at Talk:University of Ottawa. --20px Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Though this discussion has only been going on for a day or two, the discussion at Talk:University of Ottawa has already escalated into minor personal attacks and accusations. The dispute is over the use of "premier" and "world-renowned" (among others) as POV comments. There are currently three editors involved in this conflict: User:Anakinskywalker is in favor of using the above language, saying that they are proven through [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], among others that can be seen at the article talk page. On the opposing side, User:Nameneko and User:Spinboy say that the "proof" provided is biased in favor of the University in that they are written to show the University in a favourable light and are requesting solid proof to support the inclusion of such comments. The discussiong frequently deviates from the original discussion and is currently very hard to navigate, read, and reply. Mediation or a similar dispute resolution method for this conflict would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -Nameneko 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to mediators: it has been agreed upon in the talk page that "premier" would be replaced with "largest" with hopes that a sufficient source will be found to support it. "World renowned" still remains a problem, as well as animosity between both parties involved. -Nameneko 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy is actually the one attacking me by harassing me as shown in his behavior by Vandalizing the University of Ottawa article and the Talk and negotiation sections, which were currently in dispute. I have provided 9 sources, some better than others, based on factual, consistent, infortmation and both Spinboy & Nameneko say that none of them are reliable and don’t provide any proof at all to there claims otherwise.

Spinboy has also resulted in using unacceptable language and using personal attacks against me, not me attacking him. If you look at the History of the Talk page and Article itself while in dispute, you see Spinboy deleting my posts and when I ask him to provide an explanation during negotiations, he simply gets out of control and reverts, complains, swears, etc.

Nameneko keeps asking for more and more sources, and he keeps on dismissing every single one, because he claims that the sources are solely from Canada, which leads me to believe he is somewhat biased and non productive to the dispute. He does not offer any valid points or shows any proof of any kind, and he is the one who brought up the article for dispute in the first place, but does not provide anything and keeps dismissing all sources. Some of the sources I have provided are from the Canadian Government website, a European University website, Organization websites, the University itself, and other sources with factual information.

Nameneko disputes over the use of "premier" and "world-renowned" to describe the university.

While Anakinskywalker says the use of "premier" is justifiable and “world-renowned" refers to the Faculties of Medicine, Science, law itself and their research, professors, and not the university as a whole.

Joshuapaquin and I have already started a dialogue to try and solve this with a compromise. We have agreed to the “World-renowned” part is justifiable based on the evidence given, but agreed that the “premier” term needs to fixed/adjusted. Spinboy and Nameneko have contributed nothing at all. If you read the talk page of the University of Ottawa you will see for yourself. Also, if you read my personal talk page or Joshuapaquin, you will see a big difference in what negotiations can do when parties are working together.. Thank you.

Talk:University of Ottawa

-Anakinskywalker 19:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Referred Nameneko to WP:TINMC. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Christopher Sundita and User:Node ue disallowing me to use a source[edit]

Those two users keep reverting the Moldovan language article, because of this fragment that I posted:

The Moldavian chronicler, Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647), established in his "Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei" (The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia) that Moldavian (Moldovan) and Wallachian (Romanian from Wallachia) are essentially the same language; and that Moldavians and Wallachians share the same ethnicity.

They reasoned by first saying that the source is too old (400 years old), and then by saying that the source is not reliable. Node first reverted by saying that the word "liberated" is not a neutral word - but that word was never used in my fragment. Sundita then started to debate the language it self, saying that languages can change over the course of time, etc., and that the source is no longer applicable.

The source is very reliable. The Prince was Moldavia agree with Ureche and awarded him land, and, later, Dimitrie Cantemir, another Prince of Moldavia, said the same thing about the 'Moldovan' language. I feel that I have the right to use sources on Wiki, but these people will simply not allow me to. See the history of the edits:

Can someone assist me in this dispute? I tried ANI, but I was ignored. Then I tried RfA, but someone removed it because, according to him, it escalated into a discussion. Thanks! --Anittas 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll assign this to Catherine, assuming her last case is over. Note to Catherine that we don't have acceptance from all parties yet. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Bleh! She's not available for this I suddenly remember. I'm sorry Anittas all mediators are busy right now, but there's good news, there's another committee called the Mediation Cabal at WP:TINMC. I'll have them look at it. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! --Anittas 23:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OJ Simpson[edit]

Currently user (Doc Glasgow), who is apparently an (administrator) on Wikipedia is banning me for altering the OJ Simpson page so that it complied with Wikipedia's (NPOV policy). Specifically, I removed the word (allegedly) from a sentence about OJ Simpson's double murderers, since it is a well known fact -- one that has been proven in court and is supported by all the evidence -- that (Simpson) murdered two people. When I tried to discuss this with (Dr. Glasgow), he banned me from (Wikipedia) and vandalised my talk page with accusations that (I) was the one doing the vandalising. I do not understand why (Doc Glasgow) refuses to discuss the edit with me and prefers to abuse his powers to keep me from effectively arguing my (case).

This is very serious abuse of power, as far as I can tell, and is worthy of (immediate attention). 00:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, not the place for this. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I mistook his/her POV edits for vandalism. In reflection that was a mistake, I have unblocked the user, apologised - and urged them to debate the matter on the talk page. I am not, and will not become, involved in the content of this article.Doc (?) 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs · block log) subsequently blocked for vandalism by other admins - so perhaps I wasn't so far of the mark. :) --Doc (?) 10:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I read the relevant explanations but am still not sure whether this is exactly the right place to request a meditation? Well, anyway, here goes:

I request a meditation on the article about Muhammad for the following reason:

A group of users is consequently deleting my insertions in the article, apparently because of letting their personal religious beliefs influence their WP work (at least IMO). My attempt to reach a POV discussion on the issue is thwarted as well - by simply deleting even the POV template which I inserted to start a civilised POV dispute.

A more detailed explanation can be found on the relevant part of the discussion page.

Thanks for your help. -- 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that many of the editors opposing this insertion of an offensive cartoonish picture aren't even Muslim and that this discussion has already taken place long ago with the editor that uploaded the image. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I am recommending you don't [take the case]. Doesn't seem like a relevant dispute. Seems like some anonymous IP editor just came in for the sake of annoying others and inserting a ridiculous offensive picture. I think they already had in mind that they would seek mediation. Besides it will be 4 editors (Kwamikagami, FayssalF, JadeManiac and me) vs. 1, who hasn't returned again. Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
So the case is rejected. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Dark droid[edit]

User:Dark droid persists in making legal threats, posting personal attacks, and vandalism [6]. I don't know how to proceed. Is moderation the right way? Jim Apple 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted his vandalism before and warned him, but didn't know the rest. The legal threat puts me over the top; he is now blocked. I'd be pleased if any of the other administrators that watch this page could review my block. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:FuelWagon and User:Ed Poor[edit]

Ed Poor suggested he and I try mediation by email to resolve a longstanding dispute. If I could pick, I'd probably go with User:Andrevan as mediator, assuming he doesn't have a conflict of interest regarding Ed Poor or myself. FuelWagon 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to mediation. If I could pick, I would go with Improv or Catherine. Uncle Ed 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Andrevan is busy. I think I'll assign this case to Improv as he once mediated a case with Ed Poor before, but if FuelWagon rejects Improv on those grounds, I'll assign Catherine. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine, User:Improv. Since I know almost nothing about these people, I'm basically picking names out of hats. FuelWagon 22:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I have emailed both users, and mediation will proceed when we all get in touch over email. --Improv 23:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I have withdrawn as mediator on this case. I am uncertain if/when the case is to proceed, although if it is, I am willing to mediate again. --Improv 20:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

my response to the initial round of mediation questions[edit]

On Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:47 PM, I emailed my answers to the first round of mediation. They are pasted below. FuelWagon 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Could you briefly describe the difficulties you have been having?

I'm not sure how "brief" you want it.

Very briefly, Ed Poor was mediating Terri Schiavo. A friend of his, SlimVirgin, entered the article out of the blue and made a massively bad edit, a number of editors opposed her edit, and Ed engaged in teh debate, defending SlimVirgin and attacking people who criticized her. Three editors left wikipedia in disgust after this fiasco.

The longer version:

Ed was mediating Terri Schiavo back in July. A month into mediation, a friend of his (SlimVirgin) came into the article and made a nine back to back edits with the "in use" tag,

A number of editors (myself, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, A ghost) objected, saying her edits contained numerous factual and NPOV problems, and that an administrator (SlimVirgin is an admin) should have known not to walk into an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation" and performed such a massive edit with little knowledge of the subject.

It was at this point that mediation suddenly failed and Ed seemed to engage in the argument. I violated NPA and was blocked (explained below). I accepted the block without protest. But then I started working on an RfC against SlimVirgin and Ed blocked me for making "personal remarks".

I ask Ed to point out specifically what got me blocked, and he declines to answer.

User Neuroscientist posts a 5,000 word explanation of the different technical problems with SlimVirgin's edit. Ed Poor responds by warning him about violating NPA.

I RfC SlimVirgin. Ed initially gives it partial hesitant endorsement, saying SlimVirgin "moved too far, too fast", but then after another editor told him he should not have endorsed it, Ed withdrew his comment and attacked the RfC as "a sneaky way of "building a case" "it is no more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way." and "spurious".

I eventually withdraw my certification of the RfC to allow it to be deleted. Ed Poor then posts this to me:

You're entitled to form whatever opinion you want, but not always to
express it. There is no freedom of speech at Wikipedia in the same
sense as America's First Amendment. I happen to think you're an asshole
and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd,
time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden
comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was
illustrating a point.

Duckecho and Neuroscientist stop editing wikipedia soon after the RfC is deleted. A Ghost stops editing soon after that.

2) Have any other people been involved in the dispute?

Duckecho, Neuroscientists, A ghost,

The people who opposed the RfC included 1 SlimVirgin 2 Viriditas 3 El_C 4 Mel Etitis 5 172 6 Jayjg 7 Noitall 8 Ruy Lopez 9 Proteus 10 FeloniousMonk 11 Ann Heneghan 12 Kaisershatner 13 Mackensen 14 Slrubenstein 15 Bishonen 16 Willmcw 17 Eliezer 18 David Bergan

3) Have the difficulties ever felt personal to you?

I'm not sure if I thought it was "personal". I thought that Ed Poor was playing favorites to SlimVirgin, which meant that I, Duckecho, and Neuroscientist were dismissed by him, even though we were right about the content. SlimVirgin's edit was full of errors.

4) Do you feel that you have ever stepped over the bounds of what you would consider in calmer times to be good and appropriate behaviour?

On July 12, I violated NPA, attacking SlimVirgin. After I posted those comments, Viriditas calmed me down and I went through and tried to clean up the personal attacks.

5) Do you feel that your counterpart has ever violated policy on Wikipedia in these conflicts?

I think he failed to mediate in any sort of neutral way once SlimVirgin entered the Terri Schiavo article, I think he engaged in the debate, taking SlimVirgin's side. I think Ed's second block against me was a misuse of admin priveledges. I think he violated NPA when he was "illustrating a point".

6) Do you feel that you may have ever violated policy on Wikipedia in these conflicts?

I violated NPA against SlimVirgin. I cleaned up my edits. I was blocked by Ed anyway, and I accepted the block.

7) What kind of specific changes would you like to see come about as a result of mediation? (try to keep this concrete)

Concrete? I don't know, I want some honesty around this. Ed has never acknowledged any bias during mediation in SlimVirgin's favor, he never acknowledged that his second block was undeserved, his warning to Neuroscientist was undeserved, his attack against the RfC was out of line for a neutral mediator, or that he attacked me.

And when I've taken this through any other stage in the dispute resolution system, I get friends of Ed defending him independent of whether his actions were right or wrong. Arbcom closed the case against Ed without declaring that he had done a single thing wrong.

SlimVirgin is still grudging me because I RfC'ed her, and she has just recently RfC'ed me, bringing up all the mess around Terri Schiavo, claiming it is entirely my fault.

If Terri Schiavo had been handled by a neutral mediator, this dispute would never have exploded in the first place. Because SlimVirgin never had to acknowledge a single criticism of her edit (she still denies there was a single error of fact in her edit), because the mediator placed blame on the editors who criticized her, SlimVirgin gets to cast herself as the complete innocent here.

And I'm getting shafted by the collusion of silence. No one can admit anyone else did anythign wrong. Neither Ed, nor anyone else, can admit that Ed Poor's mediation was biased and engaged in the dispute.

Derek Jeter, Derek Sanderson, &c.[edit]

As someone who doesn't have sufficient knowledge of whether Jeter (whose full name is Derek Sanderson Jeter) was named after Derek Sanderson) but who is interested in seeing the pages not fall into edit wars, if it is proper for me to request mediation, I'd like to request one. --Nlu 10:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take this case as soon as you tell me what users are involved... Redwolf24 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The parties involved are Brian Brockmeyer, Ravenswing, and Googie man. Thanks. --Nlu 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Left a message at their three talk pages. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Ravenswing 04:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Brian Brockmeyer 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Googie Man 18:04 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright! Now this page is located at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Derek Sanderson Jeter. Please add that to your watchlist, and return here frequently, now I'm gonna check if you all have e-mail registered with the wiki, mediation will be done this way unless any of you reject. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
RGTraynor doesn't have an email set, so I left a note on his talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. Ravenswing 03:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Have we any resolution of this yet? Ravenswing 05:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well. Plainly some manner of arbitration *does* have to continue, if the mediator himself can make a change to the file -- for which documentary evidence has been submitted -- and Brockmeyer changes it right back without a comment. Ravenswing 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is the documentary evidence? —Cleared as filed. 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
A letter from Jeter's website, an article link from the St Louis Post-Dispatch website, both of which have been submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenswing (talkcontribs)
Case dropped after Brockmeyer's being totally unwilling to compromise. Go to RfAr or RFC now. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association[edit]

Mediation is required over a conflict regarding whether a pedophile organization such as NAMBLA should be listed in Category:LGBT organizations. An RFC has been filed but no consensus is in site and attempts to remove the article from the cat because of lack of consensus are being reverted.Homey 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that user:HOTR has framed this request in a way that cleverly creates a bias in favor of his position. Along with the discussion of whether NAMBLA is LGBT, is the question of whether it is entirely a pedophile organization, or whether it is an organization predominantly populated and intended for pederasts, men who have a sexual attraction and engage in sexual acts with adolescent males -- not to mention anybody who sympathizes with the cause of ending the criminalization of such relationships for the perceived benefit of both partners. Corax 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco will take this case. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Case currently in progress at NAMBLA's article talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Category:Gay organizations will be used. —Guanaco 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton and User:Demotox[edit]

Recently I placed a gaming holiday (actually an observance) on January 25. This "observance" is proven to exist and has been deleted repeatedly by Calton. He has been proven wrong about it's status as an "observance". Originally I had claimed it as a holiday, but through appropriate deffinition search I found it to be an observance, and proved it to be so to Calton. I have proof through a transcript of our messages to one another. I accepted that it was not a "holiday" but was an "observance" and therefore should be in the "holidays and observances" subsection in the January 25th topic. I placed an updated entry for it in January 25. A few hours later it was once more deleted and I began my trek through the process on wikipedia for mediation. I am requesting public wikipedia mediation so that all my see. ≈ demotox ≈ t@ 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Reject. Please try discussing this on Talk:January 25 first. —Guanaco 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)