Revision as of 00:27, 27 September 2005

New Requests

Add your requests at the top.

Cornish people page

I feel i am comming in for some pretty unfair treatment on the Cornish people page and that double standards are being applied to the numbers of Cornish on this page as opposed to the numbers of English on the English people page

For example there are a group of users who have a big problem with the 250000 estimated figure for numbers of Cornish (who think of themselves as cornish).

However just look at the numbers estimated for English people:

English

Total population: c. 110 million Significant populations in: Great Britain:

  50 million

United States:

  30 million (est)

Canada:

  15 million (est) 

Australia:

  10 million (est)

South Africa:

  3 million (est)

South America:

  2 million (est)

Ireland:

  c. 105,000

There is no explination for these figures or questions raised, that shows real double standars.

Bretagne 44 17:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Bretagne 44 likes to play with the truth. There are sources to support these figures. Specifically the figures in the Canada and USA sections are from the websites: EuroAmericans.net and the 2001 Canadian Census. As for the other figures, they are from religion. English people are usually adherents of the Church of England. Only the English follow this religion. So technically if one finds that there are about X adherents of this religion in say Ireland or Argentina, what does that mean? We know that the Argentineans and the Irish are CERTAINLY not followers of the Church of English, they are Roman Catholics. Of course, I didn't compile that data, someone else did, however that is how he/she operated. It may not be the most reliable of methods as people intermarry, but it gives us an estimate. Also, Bretagne 44 you shouldn't have requested Meditation without informing us. Such tactics are cowardly and reveal someone who has no sources to support his arguments. I have repeatedly asked you on Talk:Cornish people to provide sources to support your claims that there are 250,000 Cornish people. You failed to do so. What do you expect me to do? Misplaced Pages policy requires it; this is not double standards. You may not like the truth; but the truth rarely pleases everyone. GrandfatherJoe 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Rspeer in dispute with User:Fahrenheit451

User:Fahrenheit451 and I have had a dispute since March about the content of Borda count and related voting system articles, at varying levels of hostility. He has agreed to mediation. RSpeer 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

unsigned request that was left here before

requests administrative sanctions and dispute resolution

I was recently blocked for a while for substituting Juris Doctor and/or J.D. for law degree in biographies. The blocker said that the reference to the specific name of the degree constituted the use of "jargon." Why does his opinion control rather than mine? He did not say the same thing about the D.D.S., M.B.A.,M.D., or Ph.D. degrees. As a holder of a J.D., I am tired of seeing the name of this degree witheld from publication on the ground that people are unfamiliar with it. The reason they are unfamiliar with it is that it is so rarely named in publications. The J.D. has been awared by all United States law schools since 1971. And, J.D. is after all, the origial doctorate, having first been awarded during medievil times by the University of Bologa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.140.181 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason you were blocked had more to do with your failure to communicate than the contents of your edits. You are welcome to make any edits you want, but if someone has a problem with your edits you need to be willing to discuss it rather than acting unilaterally. Honestly, I thought you were a bot since you didn't reply to any of my messages and you were editing such a large number of articles (a bot is a script that automatically goes through hundreds of articles making the exact same edit). Sorry if my actions seemed heavy-handed, but without any reply from you, I was forced to assume the worst. Kaldari 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not reply earlier because I did not see your messages (Now I know to be on the lookout for messages). However,I do not know the method for replying, except on this board (which I only discovered yesterday.)

64.171.224.83 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)lambejim

user:gadugi requests administrative sanctions and dispute resolution against user:karmosin

I think the point was sufficiently made. Closed.

Jeff

user:24.146.19.164 is in a dispute with user:Clawson

Hello. I currently need some help fixing a dispute with Clawson, who is continually removing messages I place on my talk page, and then repeatedly posting messages accusing me of being in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, including accusing me of VANDALISM when I delete his messages from my own talk page. I believe I am being unfairly accused, though, as a new user of Misplaced Pages, I may have precipitated this attack by accidentally stepping on toes.

Please be aware that I have taken repeated steps to resolve this dispute before bringing it to this level, even going to the point of contacting Chris in a single friendly phone call to his publicized phone number. I attempted to do this to envoke the heightened empathy and understanding that verbal communication often achieves, though he responded by hanging up on me as soon as I identified myself, and then using Misplaced Pages to call me a stalker, which I believe is a violation of Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy, to which I have been introduced by more helpful members of the community.

Please help as soon as possible, as Chris's repeated messages are hampering my use of Misplaced Pages. I will request that he wait until mediation before continuing to modify my talk page, though I am sure he will agree. 24.146.19.164 01:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris has continued his attacks, despite my request that he cease them until the end of the mediation process. As well, it has come to my attention that Chris has been warned about this sort of behaviour before, as evidenced by the scolding he received from at least one editor on his current talk page. As well, the following link includes more evidence of his prior abuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Clawson&oldid=23799147 . To some extent, I am relieved that, in past cases like this, Chris has been prevented from further attacks, but I don't understand why he's still allowed to access Misplaced Pages, when it seems clear that he's a repeat offender. 24.146.19.164 02:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The above diff provided as "evidence" shows an edit by a very persistent racist vandal who has been blocked for six months after making multiple personal attacks on various editors and administrators. Also, 24.146.19.164 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for his violation of the three-revert rule. My reversion of his edits contrary to the Manual of Style, as well as my requests that he not blank his Talk page where he had been warned about his 3RR violation, seem to have been his grounds for requesting mediation. *shrug*. Wouldn't be the first time I annoyed an anon who was acting contrary to policy/guidelines.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:DKorn in dispute with User:Gorgonzilla and others

I am a new user but from the very first I have been subjected to calumny and personal attacks at the Ray Nagin article. A user Aquillon reverted my very first edit blanking an entire section with no other explanation than the accusation I was a "sock." Despite my explanation for the edit in the discussion page and a request any mods to my edit be explained in my edit summary, Aquillon provided none. I left a message at his talk page. He refused to reply. Later an editor named Gorgonzilla answered for Aquillon (is this evidence they are sockpuppets?) with what I'd call nonsense claiming my ver batim excerpts from an official document were POV. Gorgonzilla also provided me with another official reference on the talk page which he indicated refuted my edit but, in fact, his reference supported my edit. At any rate, I consider their edits to be "partial blanking vandalism" and would appreciate a review by neutral parties. My edit can be found here. It's the section called "Mayor Nagin's Responsibility During and After Hurricane Katrina." If you agree with my edit please inform Gorgonzilla/Aquillon and me, if you agree with him/them please let me know why on my talk page. If you agree with their tactic of personal attacks please let me know that also. Thanks. --DKorn 20:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade and User:Exploding_Boy

See Talk

User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others

Request by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate of User:Researcher99. A long-term dispute in Talk:Polygamy between both users about behaivour. The matter needs mediation soonly as the controversy the topic has. User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. We'd like to solve this by mediation as is the last method we've got before mediation (there has also been a RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99). A notice has been sent to the other party --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to participate in mediation. I require the following

1. A clear statement from Researcher99 that he is willing to join in the mediation.
2. A brief statement on Talk:Polygamy allowing other users to join in the process.
3. A description of what will be covered in the mediation.

Nereocystis 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done the 2nd item. --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to participate in the mediation. I've been watching for quite some time, and have offered assistance in the past during other heated exchanges - I am not an advocate for/against either user and would be happy to act as mediator. You guys set up the rules and I'll participate or mediate - but would like to be involved offer assistance. -Visorstuff 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Only official mediators (if you like to join the Mediation Committe or find out more about it, take a round WP:MC) can mediate, but anyone can participate if the parties agree. I reccommend you to contact them directly and/or the mediator (until now, no mediator has responded this). --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - didn't notice what page I was on, I was not aware this was "official" at this point (guess I should look at the page title, huh), was hoping to assist in mediating on an "unofficial" basis. I do think that Tom AKA Hawstom did a good job previously in cooling these two off. I do think they need to forget their past interactions and be more forgiving of each other. Both are very rough toward other editors on other editing pages as well, but I think the mediation needs to focus on the current disputes. -Visorstuff 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am gladly following the guidance of my AMA, Neigel von Teighen. Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant. I am so glad to have found an AMA, whose guidance is what I am following. - Researcher 23:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I want the mediation to focus on determining the content of the Polygamy article. I am willing to forget the past interactions, if we can work toward fixing the article. Nereocystis 00:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to participate in this mediation and work towards making the Polygamy article more presentable, which is why I joined the discussions in the first place. I have been involved in the discussion for the past month and it seems to me that the best course of action would be to start with a blank slate. I feel like the ongoing argument has only served to scare away other potential editors who don't want to me dragged into this mess.-Kewp 07:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll reword my statement a little bit. I am interested in getting to a discussion of the article quickly. While I strongly prefer to start with a blank slate, I'll listen to the mediator's suggestion here. Researcher99 has previously refused to discuss the article without discussing the past. If the mediator believes that discussing the past is the best option, I'm willing to go along with it.Nereocystis 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I would ask any Mediator to note that this RfM request was made by AMA, Neigel von Teighen. In it, Neigel von Teighen clearly specified the intent and basis of this RfM, saying, User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. For the purpose of clarity, I repeat even more concisely what I said above, Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant.

In fact, such an attempt to not allow those abuses to be addressed is exactly another example of one of the abuse patterns for which the Mediation is being sought: agressively circumventing existing situations already in motion into distractions and directions not approved or agreed, "running right over me." Nereocystis aggressively "ran right over me" while I was still in the middle of a known ongoing dispute in May with Ghostintheshell that was not yet finished. They did it again in July by suspiciously inciting a VfD of an anti-polygamy article I tried to create (in another resolution attempt I was making), rather than just building on the new article I had started there. They aggressively circumvented another ongoing situation in August by embracing an unapproved archiving and change in the polygamy TALK page which I did not accept that interrupted an ongoing resolution discussion we were in at that time (and yet they still continue on as if the unapproved interruptive change was valid). They do it here again on this RfM by trying to circumvent the basis and intent of this RfM request. So, such an attempt to distract from this RfM's real purpose cleverly seeks to deny and hinder addressing the real core of the problem that Mediation is being sought in the first place for. These listed examples here are just a few of the many abuse examples of why this RfM has no possibility for "just forgetting the past." That's because to do that would only serve to undermine the RfM in the first place, rendering it meaningless and solving nothing. Requesting that, though, is actually another form of repeated abuse.

The AMA, Neigel von Teighen, is the one who made this RfM request on my behalf. The way the AMA presented this RfM request is the only valid basis for the Mediation request. Anything else, regardless of how many easily-found anti-polygamists can be found and exploited to add their "support" for the abuses against me as a minority editor (for not being a hostile POV anti-polygamist), is just another attempted aggressive circumvention. It's more abuse. - Researcher 23:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to move this along quickly, if we can. Is there a mediator who is willing to try to resolve this problem? Nereocystis 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis, I have sent a message to the Mediation Committee chairman (User:MacGyverMagic) to alert him that the requests are increasing and nobody answers them. I hope it works! --Neigel von Teighen 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Active

In progress

Pending

Iraq War info on Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century

A user with the IP address 153.104.16.114 insists on adding the following info to the timeline's description of the Iraq War: "...Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime, which largely favored Sunni muslims; giving rise to greater power among the Shi'a and the Kurds in the country." I feel this info is inappropriate because the jury is still out on what the long-term effects of the war will be, and focusing on these apparent effects tends to give the description an un-objective, pro-war slant. Though I had previously advocated a description that mentioned WMD and the lack thereof, I am comfrotable with limiting the description to the objective facts: "A coalition spearheaded by the United States invades Iraq, leading to the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime." However, every time I change the timeline, 153.104.16.114 vandalizes the page and refuses to respond to my requests to explain his additions, instead claiming that he has Misplaced Pages policy on his side (without reference to any specific clause) and labeling me an "anti-War zealot". Provided that 153.104.16.114 is willing to reason (as yet, he has not indicated such a willingness), I feel that mediation would be appropriate in this circumstance. BalancingAct 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree mediation is necessary on this issue. The information I've added is pertinent to Islamic history, and does not present any kind of pro-war bias. The jury is not "out" on the increase of political power among the non-Sunni sects in Iraq. The ramifications of this are yet to be seen, however, the immediate effects of broader political say among Shi'ites and the Kurdish minority have already been seen in transitional governments. For some reason these facts are removed, despite their significance to Islamic history by a number of political ideologues who have no desire towards discussion or reason, and have taken their bias to the last place it belongs, a factual encyclopedia. Never are these effects claimed to justify or debunk the invasion of Iraq, nor do they suggest the Sunni leadership of Iraq prior to the war was inferior. 153.104.16.114 00:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• How about adding some say this will give rise to greater power among the Shi'a and the Kurds in the country.? --Uncle Ed, Mediator. Uncle Ed 13:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think that solves the problem at all, because again, why concentrate on the power balance issue? It is by no means the most important issue. We could just as easily say, "some say the war has led to an irreversible increase in distrust and hostility towards the United States in the Muslim World," or "some say the war has strengthened extremist groups, who have used the invasion as a recruiting tool." Each of these are true (the fact that such comments have been made, not necessarily the comments themselves), but they tend to make the war look bad, and isolating these effects out of the myriad consequences this war has had for Islam and the Muslim World would give the description an anti-War tint. Similarly, the info about the post-War power balance gives the description a pro-War tint. At this point, I think it is best to refrain from commenting on the War's effects because we're still seeing the effects unfold, and it will be a number of years before we can look back and definitively say, "The Iraq War resulted in X." BalancingAct 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over membership and conduct on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit

There has been an RFC on the page itself, not on individual user conduct RFC.

Users involved:

• User:Banes
• User:Noitall
• User:Agriculture
• User:Erwin Walsh
• User:MONGO
• User:Hipocrite
• User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

All users have been notified. The original intent was to file an RFAr, however we are willing to try mediation first, see User_talk:Noitall#Important_notice.2C_for_immediate_attention and hope that it will be productive.

Radiant and Tony Sidaway

Radiant seems to be showing extreme impatience with my recent conduct, making what to me seem to be quite incomprehensible accusations, and making apparently arbitrary challenges to my VfD closes, and even going so far as to attempt to edit the policy documents so as to favor his opinion and restrict my scope of action as a sysop--and, consequently, the scope of action of all sysops who would come after me. While on the face of it this to me seems like the antithesis of what a wiki is about, I'm sure he has a point, but I just don't understand it and I find myself in a position where I cannot predict where his next apparently weird accusation will come from. I've complied in a half-hearted manner with some unofficial mediation attempts, but I think it's time to get serious. What on earth is up? I'm honestly dying to know. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Relevant RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway

(Moved to talk page.)

Okay, Tony Sidaway is on a wikibreak, however I would like to get this RfM moving. I think that Catherine will do as a fine mediator for you too. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediator has responded

Inactive

Dropped / Abandoned

Concluded

Concluded mediations should be moved to the nearest archive to reduce clutter on this page.

Archives

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution