| Revision as of 18:56, 15 July 2005 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 edits →[]: I did not say I '''want''' to do this.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits rdr to mainTag: New redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{/Rfm-header}} <!-- Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header --> | |||
| {{introedit}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == New requests == | |||
| :'''Please place new requests here, most recent ones first.''' ''We realize there is a lengthy backlog, but please be both persistent and patient. (Changes in RFM policy seek to address this backlog.)'' | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Dispute between myself and ] about the inclusion of a "One Crown or Many" section and references to a judicial ruling in Canada. See ] and ] for proof of consent to mediation by both parties. | |||
| ]22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I will take a look at it now''' -]|] 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| Edit wars have been raging on this page for a long time. Me and Adam Carr have been edit warring on it for months, perhaps over a year. He seems to have indicated that he would accept the results of mediation, and I would as well. | |||
| Anyhow, we have gone down the chain of dispute resolution - several RFC's did not help. So now we are here. There are many issues, but perhaps we can focus on one to begin with. Which is whether an army, government and political coalition in Cambodia should be refered to as CPNLAF, GRUNK and FUNK, or that they all be referred to as "Khmer Rouge". There are also disputes over whether Sihanouk was in charge of Cambodia in 1975 from April onward. This dispute has gone on since May. I am willing to accept the decision of a mediator regarding this. Adam Carr seems to have indicated he will as well, perhaps I can get a stronger affirmation from him. | |||
| I should note that while the GRUNK/FUNK/Sihanouk issue has been burning since May, CJK made two controversial edits on July 3rd. And then there are other issues as well. But first things first - we should resolve the GRUNK/FUNK/Sihanouk issue first. But if that issue is resolved, there are probably a host of issues that can be solved on this page. Since we have been unable to resolve one issue since May, I think it would make sense to take things one issue at a time instead of trying to do everything at once. If the GRUNK/FUNK/Sihanouk thing is solved, then we can move on to the next thing. So I'm just saying, the mediation on this one issue might lead to mediation on several, or many issues on this page, so bear this in mind. | |||
| My one concern would be that I know Ed Poor is anti-communist, so if he was chosen as the mediator, I'm not sure if everyone would perceive it as "a neutral third party" as the mediation page says. Not to make unfair accusations against Ed Poor, I'm just talking about perceptions and that sort of thing. I'm not sure if Adam Carr or others have any opinions along these lines about any of the mediators. ] 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The issue here is quite simple. Ruy Lopez, under this and several other names, is a systematic pusher of communist POV in many articles including this one. He needs to desist. If a mediator can persuade him to do so, fine, but I am sceptical. ] 04:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : While I would accept the decision of a mediator, Adam Carr has said he would not. So that would seem to mean there is no consensus for mediation, since I have been the main protagonist, and him the main antagonist for so many months. ] 05:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't actively participate in this dispute (although I tend to favor Ruy's versions), but I do want to say that I think Adam's attitude is so awful that mediation is hardly even worth trying. If he isn't willing to compromise and reach consensus with other editors, flatly states that he will bar his enemies from contributing to articles by revert warring, and attacks people based on their politics, then he is so far away from what we need to work constructively that he needs an ArbCom ruling to set him straight. ] 05:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I "compromise and reach consensus with other editors" every day of the week. The only people I won't compromise with are LaRouchists and other POV-pushers, of which Lopez and his many aliases are the leading current example. I don't see how I can or should "compromise" with people whose sole reason for being here is to impose their ideological fetishes on serious historical and political articles. I have no objection to a mediator trying to find a way to end the dispute over the Khmer Rouge article, but it certainly won't be by me "compromising" on matters of fact. I point out to Everyking that my last two major edits battles, with the LaRouchist Herschelkrustofsy and the POV-pusher Skyring, ended in both of them being banned by the ArbCom. Certainly I was reprimanded for my aggressive tactics, but my position ''on the issues at stake'' was vindicated in both cases. The sad fact is that the structural weakness of Misplaced Pages is such that ''only'' these tactics can succeed in defending articles against POV-pushing wreckers like Lopez. ] 06:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''It has been a long time since my last edit on ] or ] or ]. If AC and RL would like me to try, I'm willing to get the Mediation started.''' Then, if either party begins to suspect me of "siding", then I will promptly recuse myself. In other words, I'm offering to be a Provisional Mediator, and if it doesn't work out Mgm or Steve will assign you another Mediator. You're all such special guys that we're willing to give you "two cracks at it". What do you say, fellas? ] 17:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I think this has gone to prove my point. I said that I did not think Ed Poor would be "neutral" according to the mediator definition and requested that he not be a mediator. And of course, even this said, he says he wants to be the mediator. I said what I said because I knew that with six mediators, there wouldn't be a 15% chance that Ed Poor would be the mediator, but a 100% chance he would want to be the mediator, precisely because he would not be neutral in this regard. Amazing how I predicted him wanting to do this to such an extent that I deemed a caveat necessary, no? And he still wants to do it. | |||
| : Well, Adam Carr said he would not except the decision of a mediator, even though I said that I would. So this makes having a mediator pointless. Adam Carr says he is taking a "break" from Misplaced Pages, so this edit war has cooled until then, although the page is locked, and he might end his break by the time the page is unlocked. He said he won't accept a mediators decision anyhow. And the one mediator who I thought would not be neutral on this case, is of course the one jumping to get into mediating this page, even though he was specifically asked to be the one mediator to not get involved in this page. ] 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Amazing how easy it is to miss an '''IF''' and to confuse ''am willing'' with ''want''. *sigh*. I did not say I '''want''' to do this. I did not even say I am '''willing''' to do this. | |||
| ::There is a pre-condition, which is that both Adam Carr and Ruy Lopez "would like me to try". | |||
| ::Let me try again, in less ambiguous language: (1) If Adam Carr and Ruy Lopez both '''ask''' me to Mediate, I will try to overcome my anti-communist leanings sufficiently to resolve the matter. (2) If either Adam Carr or Ruy Lopez objects to having me as a Mediator, I will not accept the role of Mediator. | |||
| ::I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear this time. ] 18:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I support Ed's offer completely.''' ]|] 23:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| There has been a bit of a revert war going on on ] regarding the blanket removal of the views of popular writers on the subject who represent the skeptical view. Trying to arrange a compromise. ] 8 July 2005 15:48 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Ed or MGM will assign a mediator shortly. Has there been any general consensus for mediation?''' (cpd) -]|] 09:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * I have no objection to mediation. I wouldn't describe the postings made by KG before this request as 'trying to arrange a compromise', tho! My view is that the article should be neutral, and not lead the unwary reader to repeat crank views as if they were mainstream. ] | |||
| == Pending == | |||
| === ] === | |||
| There is a dispute on this page between myself and ], as presented in the ] page and in the page's history log. Tequendamia strongly believes that the phrase "the American concern that Colombians migrated massively to Panama and claimed the restoration of sovereignty over this territory that was separated from Colombia by the US in 1903" should be included in the article. I argue that the phrase should be changed into "the concern that Colombians would migrate massively to Panama", specifically because Tequendamia has not provided evidence of a)the existence of such a concern being currently held by the U.S. government b)that Colombians migrating to Panama today would seek to realistically claim such sovereignity, among other points. Tequendamia has accused me of , whereas I have repeatedly tried to ask him to present evidence supporting his position. A little bit of a pointless "edit war" has erupted about this, hence perhaps some mediation from a third party would be necessary in order to solve this dispute. ] 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] has informed ] of this request on their talk page. '''Awaiting response.''' ]|] 17:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| There is a clear dispute on this page, as indicated in ]. I have made major grammar edits, and someone has called them "idiotic" and has threatened to undo everyone of them. I probably spent 2 hours fixing the page. My intentions were not to offend or vandalize.--] 05:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I've posted to ] and asked other disputants to respond to this request.''' ]|] 17:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| A request for mediation regarding a user and administrator ] has been submitted. This user has hijacked pages relating to the Canadian Monarchy to push his strong republican POV (demonstrated easily by his editing history), debate and discussion has had no effect, and his attitude is bullyish and borderline offensive. There are two key areas where this is happening: on the ] page where he is trying to push his POV about the Crown in Canada being British, and on ] where he is trying to make his debate a part of the article. | |||
| The debate began at the ] page, and has become quite heated. ] does not accept factual argument and numerous proofs from both ] and myself, instead only asserting his own POV backed up by misinterpreted or completely irrelevant information. | |||
| A mediator clearly needs to step in to assist in a resolution to the arguments, as well as to control AndyL's behavior. --] 20:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Obviously I dispute that it is *my* behaviour that has to be "controlled". Gbambino's been rather consistent in ignoring consensus in order to push his particular POV in various articles.] 5 July 2005 02:37 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Has this been resolved, or is mediation still requested?''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC) | |||
| Peter Grey suggested a compromise some days or weeks ago for ] and I accepted it so, as far as I can tell, there is no actual dispute at present regarding the contents of that article. There is a debate on ] but it is not about the actual article so mediation would serve no purpose. ] 6 July 2005 21:33 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe the issue is ongoing as AndyL continues to push his POV against provided facts and logical argument to the contrary, all in a consistent bullyish and unmannerly tone.--] 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC) | |||
| This is not the arbitration committee and has no power in regards to exercising discipline, it simply tries to achieve compromise and we have a compromise. The mediation committee is a voluntary process, not an obligitory one and unless you can convince me that there's some value in mediating this the matter further the matter is closed and, frankly, the way you and Peter are going about this is making it less likely that I will volunteer to engage in mediation. Peter below asks for "some action", that is not what the mediation committee is empowered to do. He, like you, is confusing the mediation process with the arbitration process and the ArbComm has dismissed your complaint as, evidently, the ArbComm members do not concur with what you "believe" to be the case. ] 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC) | |||
| And furthermore, there is nothing currently in ] or ] that is subject to dispute except for the question of external links and both you and Peter Grey have agreed with me on that question. The fact that you don't like my questioning some of your overly broad or inaccurate edits is just part of life on wikipedia. No one has the last say, it's a collaborative effort, and you'll just have to learn to deal with it rather than running and complaing whenever someone says you're wrong about something. ] 8 July 2005 18:05 (UTC) | |||
| :Your tone above demonstrates precisely why a mediator is needed. Direct communication with you always results in this type of attempt to demean and defame your opponent when you are challenged or contradicted. You claim that all issues have been resolved, yet lengthy debates, which you often draw down with your derogatory and bullyish attitude, have been continuing over the past couple of days at ]. I'm also concerned that you will not let this go, and will continue to try and shove your ill-informed POV down everyone's throat, brushing all factual evidence and argument aside in the process. This is, for now, all I have to say on the matter here; I hope a mediator will at least pay some attention to this and offer assistance. --] 8 July 2005 19:05 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, you haven't convinced me, and mediators require the consent of all parties so I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps you should give some thought as to why not even one arbitrator thought your complaint worthy of attention? I'm sorry you are so intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you and so incapable of dealing with criticsm -- hopefully you'll get the hang of dealing with disparate opinions soon. Good luck. ]9 July 2005 02:04 (UTC) | |||
| ====Parties who have agreed to Mediation==== | |||
| *#] 5 July 2005 00:31 (UTC) - Note that a number of other articles have a problem of AndyL promoting his own ]. ] 23:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *#--] 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) - Note the trail of articles where AndyL has been causing issues by pushing ] and ]: ], ], ]. As well, the related talk pages: all the way down to , , down to , , --] 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *# | |||
| *# | |||
| *# | |||
| ====Selection of Mediator==== | |||
| If enough parties agree to Mediation, next step will be selection of a Mediator. ] ] July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediator has responded== | |||
| ===] === | |||
| ;] and ] | |||
| Request for mediation over a dispute on current name alternatives for ]. ] has initiated a change in this article which is largely POV. His response to several attempts to discuss the need for any change was delayed, curt and POV. During our exchange ] has initiated another change to a related article on ]. | |||
| I call for two things: the ] article should be left unchanged (which ] seems to support now) and the ] article should reflect ''Budweis'' as ] and ] name alternative. These name alternatives are based on former and current use by foreigners and locals alike. ] 30 June 2005 18:23 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC) | |||
| * The person who accuses me of POV has argued that "What happened to formerly Jewish, German and Magyar towns like Bratislava borders on barbarism and is a real shame". Clearly it's him who's driven by POV here. ] 1 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not accusing anyone, that's just your interpretation of my call for mediation. I saw you engage in revert wars before and believe others brought and into mediation before. | |||
| * You have just again reverted an article with a comment "I'll leave Plzen on your version, and you leave that on mine". I didn't write these articles. I did bring to your attention however that you are making a controversial POV change and brought forward some facts to document the continued use of both "Budweis" and "Pilsen". I believe your understanding of both the topic and the spirit of collaboration here on Misplaced Pages is quite a bit off. ] 1 July 2005 17:39 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ;] ] | |||
| :NoPuzzleStranger is constantly posting lies about my work. I asked him to stop, but he goes on and posts claims at ] that he cannot support by reliable data. Some of his claims are allready proven wrong but he goes on and on. He is really annoying in the way he works. I set up a section in the talk page but he stopped to work there. I finally left his comment, and wrote that this is only comment by him and that he insists on it. Than he said I insist on the content of the whole page, what is a lie. ] ] 13:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : now he blanked the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AWikiProject_Subnational_entities%2FNaming&diff=0&oldid=15342974 | |||
| :Tobias Conradi has gone on a mass-moving campaign in order to install his preferred format for naming subnational entities in a fait accompli, without first establishing a consensus, and despite numerous protests. I was simply trying to point out that fact on ] - a page entirely written by Tobias Conradi, which he also uses to give the impression that his personal opinion is established policy (e.g. citing that link in edit summaries when he reverts something to his format). The page points out that his format is "current use" - which is true, but only because of his own moves, which number in the thousands. ] 13:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :NoPuzzleStranger is again lieing. He did not simply pointed out something, but called my work "crusade". When I asked him to provide statistics for his claim that the status of the "Current use" section is only like that because I unilateraly mass-moved hundreds or thousends of pages he failed to provide this statistics. I left his note in the page but added that this is only a claim by him without statistics. I myself started to provide statistics, showing he was wrong, because all what was current use was either in the format before, moved by me, or reverted by others. All disputes with third parties have been solved. He is also lieing if he states the page was entirely written by me. As can be seen from the history there also where other contributers. ] ] 15:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''I've send both a message reminding them to avoid loaded language and to continue/start talking on their respective user talkpages without accusing each other. We may need to keep an eye on things to avoid further escalation.''' - ]|] 14:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| ;Several editors, but main disputes between ] and ]) | |||
| A heated and at times very uncivil dispute over numerous sections of the article on this large paper has been raging for about a week and while both sides have conceded some smaller issues, larger ones remain; issues revolve around whether the article is balanced overall and whether several sections are presented properly and in an NPOV fashion. Based on interactions so far, I personally have little to no hope that Rangerdude and I can satisfactorily come to agreement on what remains without some help. The article was listed on RfC about a week ago without much result. There are a couple of other less involved editors who have weighed in on several items, some of which have come to a satisfactory conclusion, but some of which have not, in part because Rangerdude feels that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule his own position. I feel that at this point we need some guidance to help break this stalemate; the way we are proceeding (or not proceeding) now is counterproductive and seems to be devolving into more fingerpointing than talking about content. Rangerdude has said he does not feel mediation is needed. Thanks. · ]<sup>]</sup> 23:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' for purposes of clarification and factual correction. This dispute has indeed been very heated however it has not been without progress from any reasonable standpoint. ] has adamantly and repeatedly accused me of attempting to introduce POV material into this article, calling me a "POV warrior" among other names, but unfortunately lacks cognizance of her own very strong and often pervasive opinions on the subject of this article. To suggest that I "feel that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule" my position is a blatant misrepresentation that has become characteristic of this individual user against me. The discussion to date has attracted a total of 6 participants by my count, including the two of us and four others who have been far less active. There have been no votes taken, and the sole incident where I have disputed her claims of "consensus" against me involved one single minor point where another editor posted a single brief concurrence with her position. That editor also happens to be the least active among the 6 involved and has not since returned to it to either respond to followup statements or discuss his position. I indicated on the article's talk page that I did not feel mediation was necessary because most of the differences are over phrasings and language used in the article that could be resolved '''IF''' Katefan0 would only take the time to identify, propose, and consider alternative options. Despite my repeated invitations for her responses and proposals of alternatives, I cannot even obtain her participation in that. I set up a place to do so on the talk page and made several proposals of my own, soliciting her responses, but each time she's not willing to budge even an inch from her strong POV perch. To indicate the level of hostility towards me that this editor has employed since her very entry into the discussion, she would not even respond to my requests that she reformat her source citations of the material she added to make them consistent with the style used throughout the remainder of the article. | |||
| :As things currently stand, I have made several proposals on some of the disputed language points and solicited her response as well as the response of others. This has involved several compromises and concessions on my part to accomodate her and other points of view, however Katefan0 remains seemingly steadfast in insisting that her own chosen version of a disputed section (which is strongly favorable to her POV) be supplemented for the existing version in full with little to no changes. For obvious reasons this is unacceptable, however I have been fully willing to work towards a compromise on the individual points under discussion. Unfortunately she has not, hence the rub. Thanks. ] 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Some of the current disputes: | |||
| #Whether a reference to a criminal investigation should use the word "criminal" as is the case in the statute that applies | |||
| #Whether groups should be identified by their legal registration (e.g. "Political Action Committee" and "501(c)6" | |||
| #Whether we should say that the Houston Chronicle was "consistent" between its published editorial and a related memorandum that both endorsed the same ballot position. | |||
| #How to phrase the description of a group's decision not to release its contributor lists ("refused" or "declined" or "chose not to" etc) | |||
| #Whether the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of a legal dispute it was a party to should be used as a primary source | |||
| #Bringing the source citation methods into consistency ] 01:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I purposefully did not get into the substance of the disagreements because I feared airing them would overwhelm this page with information that can easily be seen on the article's talk page. I'd be glad to answer any and all claims Rangerdude has made once mediation has been established, but this is not the place to have that discussion so for now I will refrain. · ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support/Join''' I support the call for mediation on this article and I wish to join the mediation. ] 22:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ====Status: in progress==== | |||
| * '''Mediation has commenced on ].''' ]|] 21:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Concluded== | |||
| ==Other== | |||
| === ] and ] === | |||
| ;Re: Redirection to ] | |||
| There is a dispute on these page between the group of users of ], ] and ], with the users ], ], ], and ]. In the ] page it has already been agreed upon earlier than the ] article will be redirected to ], but a day after the move has been done ] has taken upon himself to restore the Furry article and consider the act of the other party as ''blanking'' and ''vandalism'' (notably in the ] page). After this there have been several attempts to redirect the page again, and the restoration of the Almafeta version of the Furry article. As this is starting to get out of hand (there have been at least three restorations and three redirections, despite I having informed in the ] page to please make edits on the ] page rather than resurrecting the old ] page), I hope some outside mediation would help calm ] down. Thank you! -- ] 04:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Mediation requires the other person is willing to do it too and is informed of the request. Have you done so?''' ]|] 08:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** I wouldn't be interested in mediation, for the reasons listed in ]. Additionally, I see no reason to merge two distinct articles about two distinct topics, when both can be made into full articles as opposed to one being a section of another. ] 21:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] has informed me he's contacted ]. ]|] 13:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * I was not personally informed, but a message was left on ], so everyone involved should know about this. I am willing to mediate. --]|] 13:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** Erm, how do you square that with ] request above? He claims you've supported Almafeta. ]|] 17:19, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, I thought the RFM was also directed at me, as I'm mentioned in it. I do support Almafeta's view. --]|] 17:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thing is, Conti, you can't mediate on a topic you're informed about (and thus have an opinion one way or the other about). ] 21:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * My mistake, ContiE. I thought you wanted to mediate the case as an official mediator. But I guess you wanted to be part of the case. ]|] 21:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''So Almafeta et al want two seperate pages and Grumpyhan et al want the pages to be merged.''' Under what circumstances do the "mergists" think a seperate article on ] would be useful. What kind and how many info should it contain? ]|] 21:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** Were there enough information on the subject distinct from what is already presented in the ] article to warrant a second article, which we see as unlikely at the present time and, indeed, for some time. This issue has been discussed somewhat on the ] page, presently in the archived sections. -- ] 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I think it was ] who suggested that ] be about ''furry art'', that is to say art created by the furry fandom. That's the only suggestion I've heard. This is really frustrating because I can't think of any encyclopedic, distinct information that would warrant its own article under ] that wouldnt fit in a subsection of ]. This is an especially difficult move since people have entirely different ideas of what the word ] means, I mean I think it refers directly to its fandom, but other people (mainly furry themselves) maintain that all anthropomorphic animals are called "furries" and that this sort of information belongs in an encyclopedia. I understand the former, but the latter is what one small subculture (relative to the population at large) calls a very vague artistic and literative symbology! In other words, only ''furries'' will refer to comics like ] and books like ] using the word ]. This is why it's been so hard for us "mergists" and the other party to agree on something that could go on the ] page. I have no problems with adding new content to the ] page, but because of all this, I'm not sure what kind of information would be right! It would have to take a few things into account though, things ], ], ] and I have gone over many times on the talk page: | |||
| ***The term ] is only used by furries in the ] to describe anthropomorphic animals, or alternatively, zoomorphic people. When it isn't used by that specific group of people, it's used by people who are refering to ''creations'' of the furry fandom or to members of the furry fandom themselves. If you've been on the internet long enough, you'll know that the term ] has taken on a LOT more than that simple meaning. | |||
| ***If trying to define something like ''furry art'', there is NO clear definition of where furry art ends and similar, non-furry art begins. Any and all attempts made to define it will probably be later edited so that it says the exact opposite of what the editor wrote. I'm not exaggerating. | |||
| ***If seperated, the ] article should be on a topic that can exist independently of the corresponding ]. If not completely independently, it should at least be able to hold its own weight. | |||
| :Sorry if this went on a little long, but yeah, that's it. --] 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that mediation is necessary. ] has made a whole section for personal attacks against me on the ] page, and his behavior has been wildly accusatory for some time. While I am fairly tolerant and reasonable in the face of such behavior, making a whole section in which he accuses me of being on some crusade against ] is taking it a little too far. --] 06:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Editors have started negotiations on ]. I'll keep an eye on it.''' ]|] 21:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] === | |||
| This article needs an unbiased person to define the FACTS of the Council of Jerusalem from Acts 15. 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : This is currently the subject of a 3o, which I'm undertaking myself. I don't think official mediation is required yet. ] 12:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''If that's the case, please post an ] or ask for a third opinion''' (see link on top of page). ]|] 10:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Based on a suggestion by Kim Bruning I will send this to the ]''' - ]|] 20:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Can this be archived?''' ]|] 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC) | |||
| === ] at VFD === | |||
| In the page ], ] has made remarks (not for the first time in this discussion) to the effect "'''Tomes and his sock puppets'''" and despite my request to justify or remove the remark he has not done so after a week. I have at all times been totally honest in the discussion about what actions I have taken. I stated that I had invited several people to the discussion who had relevant knowledge. In the last round their votes were disallowed even though they had relevant expert knopwledge. There is no need for Dcflecks remarks. I can be contact by email at ray(at)tomes(dot)biz if required. I request that someone ask Dcfleck to remove his remarks. ] 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ''''Suggested other lines''' of action on his talk page including requesting a sockpuppet check on himself and asking the other user for proof. I don't think this would require full mediation, but feel free to drop him a message if you got other ideas. - ]|] 19:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Appears resolved''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC) | |||
| ===] === | |||
| ;], ], ] | |||
| I recently started editing the ] article, where ] and ] (and to a much lesser extent a few others) were already engaged in a heated and antagonistic debate, mutual reverts, etc. Following an unrelated edit by me, and my expression of a viewpoint that disagreed with Stevietheman, he has begun reverting ''my'' edits, even those explicitly identified as being in accordance with Misplaced Pages recommendations (e.g punctuation). | |||
| Most recently, he has (inexplicably) drawn the matter of my sexual orientation into it on my Talk page. The parties appear intractable on content-related issues, and there are undoubtedly instances of personal attacks and other inappropriate behaviour all around. Although I have made an RFC for the article itself, this has escalated beyond that, and I feel it will require mediation involving the three parties to resolve. ] 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Told Tverbeek all parties should be made aware of the request.''' Awaiting response from ] and ]. Will make further enquiries if reponse doesn't follow. - ]|] 19:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Stevietheman has declined mediation.''' (see )- ]|] 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** This is merely on the basis that I don't have the stomach to further argue with the two other gentlemen. I just want this to pass and let's get on with other things. I won't go anywhere near the ] article any longer... this should be seen as a solution without need for mediation. — ] <sup>] | ]</sup> 18:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Mediation declined. Conflict resolved. Archive''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC) | |||
| ===] === | |||
| ;] Vs. ] | |||
| In the past, the invoice "Macintosh Plus" of Misplaced Pages was improved by a section called "Trivia". In this section there were added rumors about the appearance of Macintosh Plus in Star trek IV movie (]). | |||
| Some mac zealots, thinking they were funny, added rumors about why Macintosh was used in that movie instead of another computer (Commodore Amiga). As an Amigan I find these rumors very insulting regarding this platform, because these gossips haunted the image of Amiga since 1986. | |||
| Now fortunately I find new evidences that those gossips regarding the greed by Commodore Computers were false and I changed the trivia section of Macintosh Plus file in order to match new evidences. Then I also | |||
| explained it in the discussion of Macintosh Plus topic. Unfortunately user GRAHAMUK continues to delete new arguments I added. | |||
| This is not a matter of "revisionism". this is a matter of justice, because due to the increasing importance of Misplaced Pages worldwide, a relevant number of Macintosh and "History of Computers" sites everywhere cutted&pasted whole story of Mac Plus from Misplaced Pages site and reported also the rumors between Macintosh and Amiga which was present notwithstanding in a Macintosh Article. | |||
| Although Misplaced Pages is not guilty for that, unfortunately the organization contributed to spread worldwide false rumors that are insulting for the | |||
| users of a computer platform. I think that Misplaced Pages organization must take its responsibilities, by unveiling new evidences to the vaste public of its readers worldwide. | |||
| So I ask you moderators to accept the fact I will revert again back Macintosh Plus trivia section as I read it for the first time (i.e. including ancient rumors about the Mac and Amiga) but to be polite, I will keep the new evidences I found only in the discussion page, in | |||
| order to not include in the main Mac Plus page some topics that are not relevant for Macintosh history. | |||
| But also I will include an indication for the benefit of readers to check the discussion page, so they could find there more informations (as clearly stated in the rules of Misplaced Pages: ]. | |||
| And I hope that nobody will delete the indication pointing to discussion page anymore, due to a matter of keeping always visible the truth even if "unrelevant", "unwanted" or "embarassing". | |||
| Also I ask you moderators to warn user GRAHAMUK not to delete anymore the trivia section as originally traded, because he has no rights to hide informations to other readers even if these informations deal only | |||
| relatively with Macintosh (and included information about Amiga also) only due to a matter of rumors reported by chance. This is my most important request to you moderators. | |||
| Also I want to signal that the other competitor abused of "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" Misplaced Pages rule, and finally he abused of language in the discussion page of Macintosh Plus where I was | |||
| trying to resolve the dispute between us. | |||
| All these facts forced me to request you for moderation. | |||
| Sincerely, Raffaele --] 10:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] and ] '''have dropped ] a line with alternative suggestions on dealing with this issue.''' - ]|] 19:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] read about suggestions ] and ], and disagree. | |||
| Ask yourself why a computer that is "unrelated" to the issue was tolerated into Macintosh Plus page almost an entire year (to be precise since may 2004 inserted by user 24.26.93.10 and until I revealed the story was different as originally traded). | |||
| Evidence says that Amiga was tolerated because it was considered a joke. | |||
| When Amiga become "embarassing" for that Macintosh legend, due to my intervention, then it was simply deleted from the issue as it never existed before. | |||
| Propaganda in Stalinan Russia was more polite. | |||
| To solve this moderation consider also this proposal of mine: | |||
| I do not want that my changes to Macintosh+ Trivia will appear anymore in the main Macintosh Plus page, because my modifications are unrelated to Macintosh Plus topic. | |||
| Hope this fact will be appreciated by readers mac editoras of the article and moderators. | |||
| But obviously the evidences I found should remain into discussion page of Macintosh Plus article. | |||
| Also I ask (as reparation) that whole Star-trek Trivia (including Amiga presence) will be reverted as originally traded since may 2004 into Macintosh Plus page and a note should be written pointing to Mac Plus discussion page (in which there are the facts I found and revealed to the public of wikipedia). | |||
| I want only this line into brackets should appear: -> (See also discussion page about other evidences on these trivia) | |||
| I think it is a honest request to return MacPlus page as orignally traded since may 2004. | |||
| (Nobody complained of Amiga into Mac Plus page, before my intervention) | |||
| sincerely, --] 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Extremely trivial. Others appear to have declined. Will communicate this to parties. Archive.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC) | |||
| === ]=== | |||
| ;] and ] | |||
| I am requesting mediation. RFC has been filed against 214, ] and ] have comunication attempts. I am persuing the next logical step. - ] | |||
| : '''Acknowledged.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 00:10 (UTC) | |||
| ::Forgot to sign a while back evidently--] 7 July 2005 16:41 (UTC) | |||
| ::''' As both parties appear to agree to mediation, do both accept my services as mediator? -]|] 8 July 2005 06:50 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure--] 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ;] and ] | |||
| ] is attempting to enforce a strong POV supporting one form of ], which form is fairly original, although not with him. He deletes criticisms of this pet form of the theory from the article at whim, and distorts the phrasing of the remainder, so that they are unrecognizable as criticism. He does not discuss these deletions on the talk page. | |||
| The result of these insistences has been to seriously unbalance the article, in which other forms of DPT deserve much more space relative to this one extreme form (as Ultramarine himself calls it) in which he appears to be ]. | |||
| He also insists on his private version of the history of the twentieth century; in which the ] was always subservient to the ] and the ] did not succeed in (briefly) installing a new regime before the Soviet tanks rolled in. I dispute the accuracy of these statements and others, and have attempted to install an accuracy duspute tag - which he has now twice removed. | |||
| Please intervene ] 16:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : On the contrary it is Pmanderson who deletes arguments and grossly distorts the article with his edits, leaving it very difficult to read. I have discussed all things in my Edit summaries. I use scholarly studies while Pmanderson relies on newspaper opinions and original research. I have given one verision of how to view the Hungarian revolution and China and keepings his. He deletes mine and keeps only his own. ] 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| ;The meaning of... | |||
| Though some might immediately roll their eyes when thinking of this article and its accompanying miles of Talk archives, right now the debate has really ground to a halt. The debate is over the meaning of "anarchism." | |||
| Supporters of ] and ] (they make no attempt to hide their association) want 1) all references to non-capitalist anarchists be done as "left-anarchists" or "anarcho-socialists" rather than simply "anarchists". or 2) a disambiguation be created that splits anarchism into "anarcho-socialism" and "anarchism" (the latter would resemble something like this: ]. | |||
| The editors that support these neologisms, and whom I believe are simply campaigning for the ], are ], ], ]. Sympathetic to that triad are ] and ]. There was an ] as his aggressive splitting and editing clearly showed that he was using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox ]. | |||
| The other faction (to which I belong) regards "Anarcho-capitalism" as no more than a minor fringe group that follows the writings of ] and is waging an ideological campaign by introducing such neologisms as "anarcho-socialism" to essentially rewrite historical and contemporary understandings of anarchism to conform to their POV. For my part, I asked for page protection, conducted a survey ] quite some time ago, and recently ], which was supposed to bolster results for ]. The new survey was archived '''4 days''' after posting, by ], possibly because his faction was clearly "losing" (speculation). I tried something novel and ] because I was so sick of hearing the same things said over and over. This had the effect of making clear (at least to me) that the POV expressed by ], ], and ] is irreconcilable -- they refuse to negotiate. | |||
| So I ask for mediation between '''those three users''' specifically and myself. If any other editors wish to enter into mediation, please sign below. --] 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : The above is a misrepresentation of me and my position. Do not make anymore false claims about me. And, I do not wish to participate in this mediation. Thank you. ] 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : How was what I said misrepresentative? I didn't accuse you of anything but intellectual dishonesty, which I don't believe is against wikipedia policy. --] 30 June 2005 02:34 (UTC) | |||
| :: P.S. I have never said I was an anarcho-capitalist. You see a basic problem here when certain individuals see this as a war between different ideological camps, when in fact, he really has no clue what the political pursuasions of some of us are. Some of us are just trying to make a good NPOV article. ] 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you decline mediation that what would you suggest as the next step to resolve this stalemate? --] 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unlock the article and let what's going to happen, happen. The lockdown on the article is excessively protracted and therefore a violation of official Misplaced Pages policy. ] 18:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''] declines mediation. May be case for ]/]. Unprotection not recommended. Will contact.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you trying to say I'm in violation of some kind of rule by not engaging in argumentation? If so, I hope you're joking. I don't work here. If you pay me, I'll debate. Otherwise, I'm just not interested. I was not even a participant in the "edit war" in the Anarchism article. I've simply been debating in the discussion page, and now I'm tired of it. If it's unlocked, maybe I'll edit, otherwise, I'm losing interest fast.] 2 July 2005 03:30 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe he is simply noting the fact that you didn't want mediation. No need to get suspicious. --] 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC) | |||
| ===] === | |||
| ;] and ] | |||
| Request for mediation over a dispute on current name alternatives for ]. ] has initiated a change in this article which is largely POV. His response to several attempts to discuss the need for any change was delayed, curt and POV. During our exchange ] has initiated another change to a related article on ]. | |||
| I call for two things: the ] article should be left unchanged (which ] seems to support now) and the ] article should reflect ''Budweis'' as ] and ] name alternative. These name alternatives are based on former and current use by foreigners and locals alike. ] 30 June 2005 18:23 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact.''' -]|] 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC) | |||
| * The person who accuses me of POV has argued that "What happened to formerly Jewish, German and Magyar towns like Bratislava borders on barbarism and is a real shame". Clearly it's him who's driven by POV here. ] 1 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not accusing anyone, that's just your interpretation of my call for mediation. I saw you engage in revert wars before and believe others brought and into mediation before. | |||
| * You have just again reverted an article with a comment "I'll leave Plzen on your version, and you leave that on mine". I didn't write these articles. I did bring to your attention however that you are making a controversial POV change and brought forward some facts to document the continued use of both "Budweis" and "Pilsen". I believe your understanding of both the topic and the spirit of collaboration here on Misplaced Pages is quite a bit off. ] 1 July 2005 17:39 (UTC) | |||
| =July= | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Mediation is requested to resolve one question - whether the following sentence can be included in the authoritative voice. | |||
| " However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less {{dubious}} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable ]s, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have ]s around them.<nowiki>] <!-- The graphite fire combined with no containment meant that the plume of radioactive smoke reached high altitudes and was therefore scattered widely - and at Chernobyl, there was a tremendous amount of such smoke. -->"</nowiki> | |||
| In spite of 4 references which posit this opinion - it remains the opinion of the positors, and is not independantly verifyable. The use of weasel the word "likely" does not grant immunity from verifiability requirments. As no one has shown how this assertion could be veryfied, it ought to be properly couched and dressed in counterclaims - which have been deleted. | |||
| My sense is the parties (4) are all open to mediation. | |||
| ] 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC) | |||
| :First, the RfC process was invoked for this article. Katefan0 has been deeply involved since. The article has just today entered an RfP cooling-off period. | |||
| :The author of the above text is a nuclear engineer who has been unaffiliated with the industry for over a decade. | |||
| :The word "unstable" is from ] - the citations back it up. Unmentioned was that American nuclear power plants don't use graphite in the core. That there is a difference may be implied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission only requiring a 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone around each U.S. nuclear power plant. | |||
| :The full text of the paragraph is: | |||
| ::The pool of money — which as of ] stood at about $9.5 billion — is contributed {{dubious}} by the nuclear industry, primarly through power reactor licensees, who are required to have $200 million worth of primary insurance as of ]. In the event that claims deplete the pool of funds, the ] is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry. <nowiki>] ] — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the ] never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, ] estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims. However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less {{dubious}} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable ]s, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have ]s around them.<nowiki>]</nowiki> <!-- The graphite fire combined with no containment meant that the plume of radioactive smoke reached high altitudes and was therefore scattered widely - and at Chernobyl, there was a tremendous amount of such smoke. --> | |||
| :More than four editors have worked on this article in the last week. | |||
| :I believe that Mediation is not indicated at this time - the editors have just begun to discuss under RfP. | |||
| :] 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC) | |||
| The Author admits to relying on one's own expertise and opinion in making this assertion and also suggests that "implied" facts may be asserted in the authoritative voice. I don't object to the assertion being included as long as it is expressed in a veryfiable manner, and not merely representative of a lone wikipedians opinions, however qualified, decorated, certified, experienced or educated they might be. | |||
| Notice that Greenpeace's cost estimates are properly attributed in-line, but the assertion that nuclear is safe is just hung up on the clotheline by itself, clipped on with a weasel word so as to dull the pain. Before wikipedia commits its authoritative voice to the assertion that nuclear is safe - let us ask - why is it asking for insurance indemnity in the first place? | |||
| 3 July 2005 20:18 (UTC) | |||
| ====Parties who have agreed to Mediation==== | |||
| # ] 4 July 2005 19:37 (UTC) | |||
| # I'd be glad to participate, but would like the mediation to cover the entire article. I don't want to talk only about one paragraph, only to have the same edit warring start anew once the page is unprotected and Benjamin decides he wants to add something additional to the current text. · ]<sup>]</sup> July 4, 2005 20:04 (UTC) | |||
| # As Katefan0. We may have near-agreement on two specific sentences that were sticking points, pending finding citations. ] 4 July 2005 20:25 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 2005 July 6 23:37 (UTC) My problem is the attitude of ] which shows absolutely no respect for anyone who disagrees with him. | |||
| # | |||
| ====Possible Mediators==== | |||
| Please indicate your preferences: accept/reject for Mediator volunteers; make other suggestions for who you'd like instead: | |||
| *] | |||
| :#I accept Uncle Ed as mediator, stressing that we're to mediate the entire article. ] 6 July 2005 17:25 (UTC) | |||
| :#I accept as respondant for the entire article without objection. ] 6 July 2005 18:31 (UTC) | |||
| :#I accept Uncle Ed, reasserting my preference for the entire article. · ]<sup>]</sup> July 6, 2005 18:43 (UTC) | |||
| :#I accept ]. ] 2005 July 6 23:40 (UTC) | |||
| ====Status: Mediation in progress==== | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| {| width="70%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| | '''RFM Archives''' (current in bold) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ''']''' | | |||
| ] | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: