Misplaced Pages

:Requests for mediation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:40, 8 May 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →Issues to be mediated: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 22:43, 8 May 2006 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Parties' agreement to mediateNext edit →
Line 86: Line 86:
*Agree. ] 20:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) *Agree. ] 20:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
* Agree ] 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC) * Agree ] 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
*Disagree - there's nothing to mediate here, Raphael1 and Wikipidian are editing against a heavy consensus. I alone am not capable of changing how the cartoons display, thus a mediation with just me is pointless. You need to go to the article talk page and try to make your case there. --] 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


===Decision of the Mediation Committee=== ===Decision of the Mediation Committee===

Revision as of 22:43, 8 May 2006

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Format template
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header

New Requests

New requests should be listed at the top of this section, right below this message. All requests must use the {{RFMR}} template. Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide provides an explanation for how to file a request; Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Sample shows the template with instructions. All parties to the mediation must indicate agreement to mediate by signing the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section; any request that has not been signed by all parties within 7 days will be rejected. A description of common reasons for rejecting requests is available at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection.

Ken Mehlman

There is a new edit war on this article. This time, regarding the inclusion of a report by the NAACP which gives a grade of F to 98% of Congressional Republicans on matters of importance to the African-American community. The mentioning comes

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

  • Under the section Republican Party chair, Mehlman's speech to the NAACP is mentioned, in where Mehlman indicates a new approach by the Republican Party to the African-American community. 6 months after the speech, the NAACP issued a report giving an "F" to 98% of Congressional Republicans. The dispute is over whether to include the report.


Additional issues to be mediated

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,


Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

  • Should the administrators block editors, who remove the cartoons or move them behind a link?
  • Should the cartoon image be moved behind a link (linkimage template)?
  • This latter point addresses a consensus achieved by straw poll involving over 200 editors on the article in question, which finished around 10:1 against the position advanced by Raphael1 and Wikipidian. To include it on an RfM involving only those two users and one admin is absurd. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,

Sathya Sai Baba 2

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

Additional issues to be mediated

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,


A Bridge Too Far

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

  • Informal propositions for compromise rejected.


Issues to be mediated

  • Are movie trivia items relevent to movie pages on Misplaced Pages?
  • Should the movie page of A Bridge Too Far contain a trivia reference to PCU?


Additional issues to be mediated

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,

Neo-Tech

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

  • User talk pages:

Issues to be mediated

  • This concerns the article, Neo-Tech. Bi claims that books published by Integrated Management Associates (a company that publishes material about a philosophy called Neo-Tech) cannot be used as references for the article about Neo-Tech ("Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"), which is bizarre becase it's the only sources on the philosophy. Lest there be any doubt, WP:V plainly says: Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic. Of course you can use the books as sources about the philosophy, in the article about the philosophy! Otherwise, the article would be blank! (As an aside, I'd like to note that the company also publishes the work of other writers not associated with the company as well). Also, he sources "criticism" of Neo-Tech from web forums, self-published web pages, etc rather than from credible published sources. He expressed a desire for form dispute resolution, as have I. Please assist enforcing the Misplaced Pages policies on sourcing. It should be pretty simple and straightforward to mediate this. Thank you. RJII 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

  • Thank you. In addition to being self-published, the Neo-Tech literature can be considered to be "unduly self-aggrandizing", which WP:V does not allow. Besides, given that Neo-Tech literature is self-published and self-aggrandizing, it would seem unfair to use a different standard for admitting views opposed to Neo-Tech. Bi 06:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,



Case name

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

  • Issue 1
user:Kitteneatkitten insists that the term "classical liberalism" used in the Classical liberalism article is restricted to use by, or primarily used by, "libertarians." He is modifying the entire article to make it look like it's not a common term in political philosophy but that it's used by "libertarians" as "a libertarian project to associate with and claim for themselves America’s Founding Fathers and other early liberal figures, and to dissociate modern liberals with these figures" (his claim in the article's Talk page.) Kitteneatkitten continues to assert this though the sources in the article that use the term and talk about the philosophy are not libertarians, as far as I know. I've pointed out that he should be able to prove that they're libertarians before he makes such claims. "Classical liberalism" is a philosophy one is taught about in basic political philosophy classes in college; it's not some obscure term that only "libertarians" use. I would like Kitteneatkitten to stop doing this to the article: As you can see, he's also deleting sources. RJII 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The above was posted by RJII.

To make my claim a bit more clear, certainly nonlibertarians use the term "classical liberal" to describe historical figures such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. However, it is primarily libertarians who use the term, and they only use it to describe American libertarians. Personally, I am a great fan of Bill Clinton and his policies, which I believe reflect the ideals of early liberal figures such as Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Bentham, and Mill. According to the biased version of "classical liberalism" that RJII prefers, only his libertarian views are qualify as "classical liberal," while my views, such as the belief in universal health care, are not "classical liberal."

A simple Google search will illustrate this (assuming that you can identify a libertarian source, such as Ralph Raico, when you see it.)

Libertarians have frequently made the claim that liberals today have deviated from the principles of earlier liberals*, and it is libertarians who have stayed true. Claiming to be "classical liberals," is one of the ways they make this claim. The article before I edited was extremely one-sided, and I was not the first to object to its like of a NPOV. It states as a fact that libertarians are "classical liberals" even though many argue that are not liberal by any definition of the word.

As I noted in the talk page, I think it would be best to move directly to arbitration, because mediation will most likely be futile. From what I have read of the Misplaced Pages policy on arbitration, going through mediation first is strongly encouraged but not required. Given that I could not accept any compromise on this page that does not note in the first sentence that "classical liberal" is a term used primarily by libertarians that that their opinions about early liberal figures reflecting their philosophy are not facts, and that RJII strongly disagrees, a compromise between us is unlikely. These are factual issues about which we disagree, but which can be resolved by a third party.

I would also like to ask RJII to be more polite to me in this dispute. First he has accused me of being a conspiracy theorist in the talk page, and now has said that I have deleted sources in a context that implies I did so in bad faith.

In fact, in addition to being biased before I edited it, the article was repetitive and unwieldy, and three sources as well as some of the surrounding text were removed to make the article more readable and improve its style. Reading these two paragraphs in question before and after my changes will confirm this.

I would like RJII to stop editing this entry.

Kitteneatkitten 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, for the record, that I don't think that libertarianism is identical to classical liberalism. This is not about libertarianism for me. I'm just helping to present classical liberalism from sources that use the term that I've encountered (which as far as I know, are not "libertarians) RJII 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,

Cenepa War

After relative calm since November, a user has come back an insisted on editing, deleting, or otherwise corrupting the information previously agreed upon over this conflict. Problems include -but are not limited to- previous -Casualty numbers agreed upon, now deemed unsatisfactory by said user. -2 views on issue, claimed as 'incompatible' (and thus deletable/editable) by said user.

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

  • Casualty box
  • Several irregular sources of information (blogs?)
  • The use of the word "invasion"
  • Losses/gains from the war

Additional issues to be mediated

  • TBA


Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,
  • I note that the only party not to have agreed has not been active since the 23rd; is this issue stale with him not editing, or is this something that can and needs to be mediated without his involvement? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:56, 1 May 2006

(UTC)


Essjay Greetings Essjay, this users attacks on me have intensified and are so blatantly provably false I must ask for mediation, either this one, or the one below. Since he has - falsely, as check/user will show - accused me of being the accuser, it can be done in this complaint, or the separate one raised below. See specific charges below. I am sorry to burden you with this, but this user is so vicious he must be curtailed in his language and tactics. Since he has accused me of being the user who asked for mediation - which I am not, and easily proven so - I do believe the matter must be mediated, for his general tactics and frankly, viciousness when opposed on a rewrite. I do note, once check/user is done, (which will prove I neither created the account nor made the edits) I am requesting banning for an indefinate period for Mytwocents for his calling names on an adminstrator's talk page - hugely violative of wikipedia rules - and his totally unfounded accusations, in addition to his editing other people's comments on talk pages. In short, I believe this matter must be mediated no matter when the original requester decides to return, and request indefiniate banning for Mytwocents. Essjay, wikipedia depends, in large part, as you taught me, on people treating each other with basic human decency and courtesy, something this user dispenses with wholesale if you disagree with his POV. The worst thing I ever said to him was he broke an agreement all had reached - with him as primary involved - to edit the related articles on Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer, and that I believed his edits, in total, reflected POV rather than history, which I massively sourced. He then edits my postings, calls me names, and now falsely accuses me of sock puppeting, which to a dedicated contributor is the ultimate insult. He is merciless in his personal attacks on people who disagree - see the proof below - and I request indefinite banning for language attacks and deliberately false accusation once check/user (which he refused to ask for!) is done. I am asking, and then I seek his banning because he so wantonly violates everything wikipedia stands for. old windy bear 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

new request for mediation on Mytwocents

Connect Hi Essjay, I am not aware of why this user User:StillStudying has not been active, except that his handle indicates a student, therefore I would assue a school computer, i. e, monday through friday, but things have changed, and I have to ask it be mediated. After being "accused" of being User:Stillstudying by Mytwocents I did put a note on the talk page of User:Stillstudying - and clearly intended it to be a message from myself, not a message from the user, or I would have put it on the user page. I frequently - as anyone who knows me and knows my work = leave notes on talk pages. (during the military project elections, when we had the cool software totally contributions, I think I had 210 on talk pages! Plus another 400 or so on articles!) Further, I am not this person, all edits to the Bonnie and Clyde talk page were made from a internet provider I have no access to, and this can be easily proven. I have requested Check/User at once to prove I neither created the account, nor made the edits in question.

Essjay, you know me, and you know, I hope, I do not use sock puppets, simply because 1) they are unethical; 2) they are stupid, the internet address is easily checked. Mytwocents, not content with calling me names, now claims I am a sock puppet user based not on any claim the edits were made by me, but that I left a humerous message - after he made his insinuation, and I told him to make it formally if he chose - on the user's talk page! It is an absurd charge, (another administrator has already wryly noted that if leaving talk page messages makes you a sock puppet she is one, on that page! And leaves a link to show it!) The charges is purely vindictive, but I want it mediated and disproven, which you have the ability to easily do. Then, sadly, I must ask you to do something about Mytwocents and his name calling, malicious behavior, and general reediting of talk pages, and more.

While we are here, I would like to equally complain that this user, Mytwocents has used every means possible, and I do mean every means possible, to obtain a false consensus on POV changes, including Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats - he did all the above in lying about me. Let us be clear on that - Mytwocents called me names on an administrator's talk page -I never treated hime so. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Woohookitty where Mytwocents called me an "ape-over-asshole nut." Slander? Calling names? Look at his talk page - look at the history of people well and regularly making similiar complaints. I simply refused to back down from him. I ask this be formally investigated. None of the edits made by User:Stillstudying were made from any computer I have access to. Period, and I can prove this. Further, a study of the language shows definite differences - I never said anything in a couple of sentences in my life. There are numermous other differences. I then request formal discipline against Mytwocents for his harassment and false accusations against a member who was just asked - myself - to participate in a peer review rewrite (check with Kirill) in the military project because I am well thought of.

I deeply resent this charge, which is false, which has NO evidence that I made any edits but says I left a message (humerous, after this accuser accused me of being the person) on that person's talk page. The internet addresses will prove it cannot possibly be me, and is not, who creaeted the account, and made edits, and I demand that wikipedia discipline. I further ask for mediation due to the open name calling on an administrator's talk page, and all of the other things that Mytwocents has done, and for his repeated slanders and threats against me. His tactics when opposed on a rewrite are merciless attacks on whoever opposes him, and this has to stop.

Essjay, wikipedia depends, in large part, as you taught me, on people treating each other with basic human decency and courtesy, something this user dispenses with wholesale if you disagree with his POV. The worst thing I ever said to him was he broke an agreement all had reached - with him as primary involved - to edit the related articles on Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer, and that I believed his edits, in total, reflected POV rather than history, which I massively sourced. He then edits my postings, calls me names, and now falsely accuses me of sock puppeting, which to a dedicated contributor is the ultimate insult. He is merciless in his personal attacks on people who disagree - see the proof and check/user will confirm - and I request indefinite banning for language attacks and deliberately false accusation once check/user (which he refused to ask for, but i have!) is done. I am asking, and then I seek his banning because he so wantonly violates everything wikipedia stands for.old windy bear 11:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Categories: