Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:14, 18 August 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →[] in dispute with [] and []← 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.)''

	=== ] in dispute with ] and ] ===
	I would like to expand my pending case against ] for ] and personal harassment to include ]. This action has become necessary over the past several weeks as SlimVirgin is now actively aiding and abetting Willmcw's personal harassment of myself and employing her administrative powers to do so. Earlier today SlimVirgin became actively involved in promoting a disruptive ] attack on my userpage by Willmcw that was intended to disrupt the development of a new wikipedia guideline proposal I have been working on (please see Willmcw's announcement of this intent to disrupt by filing the allegation ). SlimVirgin is now actively promoting this disruption and assisting Willmcw in making it as the previous diff indicates. Earlier today she also employed her administrative powers to control access to my personal userpage for the purpose of promoting this disruptive attack and did not release the page from protection until after I posted a complaint against her for doing so on both the Administrator noticeboard and the Page Protection noticeboard. SlimVirgin has also exhibited extreme personal belligerency towards me in her comments and has repeatedly made bad faith insinuations against my edits, including in a recent case where she accused me of vandalizing other people's posts when a programming glitch deleted one. SlimVirgin has also attacked me through multiple rude, belittling, and hostile personal comments, and this in spite of a standing Arbcom caution against her against making personal attacks. Repeated attempts to direct her to these policies and deflect her hostility as well as repeated requests that she not use her administrative powers to assist either herself or Willmcw in the current dispute have been met with only further hostility by her. Reason also exists to conclude that she and Willmcw are in active off-site communication regarding the dispute between him and myself, and that the two have made/promoted the aforementioned WP:POINT disruption against me in coordination.

	Given this situation I would like to formally extend my previous harassment complaint against Willmcw to SlimVirgin, who is now an active participant in assisting him in the same pattern of behavior that prompted original complaint. I will also ask for the assistance of any neutral mediator, and request that the current mediation involving myself and Willmcw be extended to SlimVirgin as well and be conducted on a public wikipedia mediation page until resolved. Your help is needed in resolving this dispute, which has already gone on for far too long. Thank you. ] 19:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

	'''Update''' - In the time I was posting this request, ] deleted a message I posted to the incident board stating my complaints against himself and SlimVirgin for harassment and abuse of administrator powers and informing the latter of my decision to extend the case against Willmcw to her as well. This deletion may be found . ] 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

	:In response, I won't participate in mediation with Rangerdude. I'm not involved in a dispute with him, though I acknowledge he's doing his best to drag me into one. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

	::Very well then. In light of SlimVirgin's refusal to participate in dispute resolution regarding her behavior, I will be seeking arbitration against her for repeated harassment and repeated violations of Misplaced Pages protocol on good faith assumption and no personal attacks. Is there an arbitrator who will help with this matter? ] 19:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

	:::Rangerdude has never filed a harassment complaint against me and instead has been building an "attack file" on a user page since June. He repeatedly talks about my supposed harassment, and his supposed evidence, to others in a variety of contexts but these charges have never been presented or reviewed. I call on Rangerdude to "put up or shut up": either file an RfC or RfA on the matter or delete the attack page and stop making allegations. Thus far he has refused to participate in mediation under standard procedures, so I no longer think it is worth waiting for that to happen. -]

	::::RD, you don't need an arbitrator to "help with this matter," whatever that means. You file an RfAr the same as everyone else. Instructions are on the page. See you in court. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

	=== ] in dispute with ] ===
	The two above-named users are involved in a dispute over the accuracy and encyclopedic value of a large amount of material dealing with weights and measures. Articles involved include:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	And probably others, as well. Also see , , and for further information.

	Many of these articles are currently listed on VfD as well. As far as I can tell, the dispute revolves around A) the accuracy of the material (Egil has been unable to verify much of it, while Rktect insists it' all relatively common knowledge and non-controversial) and B) the idiosyncratic formatting which makes figuring out what's actually being written about almost impossible. Edit-warring and reverting have been engaged in by both sides, and there have been some minor personal attacks.

	The disputants, at this point, aren't able to communicate effectively. I'm currently acting as a go-between, and have asked the disputants to declare a truce. The disputants have (weakly, I'm afraid) agreed to mediation, but I can't act as even an informal mediator, as I've already taken sides to the extent of participating in the VfD discussions, and supporting Egil's request for an advocate.
	] 17:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

	] 23:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
	I support a cease fire, truce, fair resolution of the dispute
	calming down, letting cooler heads prevail, but would define that
	as putting a hold on the sock puppet VfD process and reversions and deletions, systematic to the point of deleting sources.

	I appreciate user Kenwarren's action as a go between but
	would prefer a mediator who hasn't actually already voted for deletion
	even though he has now crossed out at least one of his votes.

	:A couple of things:
	:*'''Truce''' normally indicates that both sides cease fire, or in this case cease editing the material in question. ] has done so; you should do the same.
	:*The vote I crossed out was an accidental second vote on a single VfD. I crossed it out so that I wouldn't be counted twice.
	:*I don't see any reason for the VfD process not to move forward on the articles so nominated.

	: Rktect 8/10/05
	: I think we should agree that a cease fire and a truce during mediation
	: means no action. It means that neither Egil nor the people whom he has
	: enlisted to work on his behalf as his agents should touch the pages
	: and it means they shouldn't be deleted before the mediation process
	: can review them. I therefore move for an injunction against any
	: further vandalism.

	If you value the material, and think it will be a worthy addition to Misplaced Pages when complete, you have the option of continuing work on them as subpages of your user page, after all.
	:] <sup>]\|]</sup> 17:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

	:I can confirm I'm OK with a ] in this matter, and that I will not touch the articles mentioned while the process is on-going. -- ] 10:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

	*I have contacted both parties involved, at the suggestion of Ken, to determine if they're ok with me as mediator. I should note, however, that Mediation is mostly suited towards handling interpersonal conflicts and communications problems, and is less suitable for making decisions on the content of the article. As such, it may be that, when any tension between the parties is defused, the central issue will remain, which will then need to be handled through other means, such as a poll. Better communication is always a good thing on Misplaced Pages, so I'll be happy to mediate in an effort to improve that. --] 03:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

	=== ]'s edits to ] ===

	How long are admins going to sit back and allow this charade to continue? Mike Garcia has, YET AGAIN, incited an edit war with several users over a clearly verifiable fact where he is updating the page with inaccurate information. He somehow feels that the information of billboard.com is not the best source for Billboard chart positions and insists on using a third-party site. He has ignored repeated requests to justify his position, as he has done in the past with other articles. How long will we have to put up with this? ] 14:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
	*Should be a request for comment first. What's your rush? ] 13:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

	=== Article ] ===

	Dr Sarfati's original NPOV designation of 'scientist' is being disputed (using the term loosely), resulting in several deletions of the honorific without ]. Attempts to maintain neutrality have been met with admissions of bias by the detractors and continued deletion. This ''appears'' to be a case of bringing friends along to help the cause, and in the interest of avoiding edit wars, while maintaining a NPOV, I am asking for mediation. Thank you ] 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

	* I'd like to ask whether Agapetos_angel still wants mediation now that a "Criticism" section has been hammered out between the two of us. (For the record, I did not admit bias, I never invited or was invited to edit the article, and I did not inhale. ^_^) --] 05:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
	**Mediation is still needed, but not because of Peter, who has helped achieve a 'happy medium' through compromise. Mediation is still requested due to vandalistic deletions, often disguised as 'copy edits' or 'reverts' while deleting factual information (Duncharris, in particular). --] 15:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

	* Has there been a third opinion or RFC first? Please go through the steps in order. ] 13:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

	===] in dispute with ]===

	A dispute has arisen on the ] article. Attempts to address neutrality-of-tone and relevance-of-facts issues have been repeatedly rolled back by this user and/or ]. I see that you have been instrumental in resolving previous disputes on this article. Would you mind giving it your attention again?

	===] in dispute with 65.182.172.*===
	A annon user has been causing trouble on the ] article. When trying to discuss the article, he has been uncopperative in resolving the disputes, and has repeatly flamed me, removed my signed comments, vandalised my talk page, unarchived the archive of ], reverted all edits I make to ], among other things. Action desperatly needs to be taken. ] 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	:I'm leaving on a trip tommarow, so any mediation has to take place after sunday the 14th.]

	*I'll volunteer to mediate this if both parties are comfortable with me and are willing to participate in the mediation process. -] 15:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

	===] in dispute with ]===

	I with to ask for mediation between myself and ]. The history is like this:
	# He started posting material copyrighted in Iran and elsewhere, or of unknown copyright status (see ]. He has sometimes claimed that he has created some of the material himself and others have copied it, and sometimes that since they have been "from Iranian websites", while copyrighted in Iran, they are considered public domain for the purposes of the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, some of the material are not even from Iranian websites. (])
	# Recently, he has been badmouthing me, first in Persian and then in English. A sample: "Roozbeh every once in a while appears out of nowhere and reduces the page to a big pile of crap with his demolishing edits." (])
	I clearly need meditation. ] 13:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

	===] in dispute with ] and ]===

	I have been engaged in a series of spirited editing debates on several pages, and now two of the editors with whom I disagree have started to engage in stalking and harassment. I am adding them to this mediation request. The genesis of these attacks is that they come from a right-wing or libertarian point of view and dismiss my work as coming from a left-wing point of view. None of this should matter on Wiki.

	] filed a Request for Comment against me and ] that went nowhere.

	Shortly after that, ] inserted a huge block of critical text on my Wiki entry, over a controversy that deserves a small mention, at best.

	] then carried the attack to another page ].

	] and ] have almost taken over my own <s>'''Delete''' user </s> '''(Wiki)''' page: ] There they have attacked the quality of my professional work outside of Misplaced Pages and generally issued personal attacks in the form of obscure and POV criticisms.

	] continually dismisses my concerns on several editing pages, and rather than asnwering specific questions, buries the talk page in mountains of text that dose not address the concerns that I raise.], ], ], ]

	] inserted a POV attack attack on the Nation magazine in retaliation for an edit that I supported (He later modified the text slightly).

	There are many other examples

	I just want to get back to debating edits. Folks have gotten very heated up.--] 20:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

	====Correction====
	::The word "user" was wrong above, but the link was accurate.

	::This is more clear:

	::] and ] have almost taken over the discussion about my Wiki entry page: ]; and ] has almost taken over the discussion on my User Talk page: ].--] 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

	====Response====
	The above description of events by Cberlet is replete with demonstrable falsehoods and stems from the author's inability to abide by ], which discourages users from writing about their own off-site selves and material for the explicit purpose of "prevent(ing) prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of material on subjects in which you are personally involved." In failing to abide by these provisions on articles pertaining to himself and using off-site materials that he has authored, ] has produced exactly the type of situation described at ]. (To any unfamiliar mediator Cberlet is ] and has a biographical article about himself on wikipedia).

	Contrary to Cberlet's claims I have engaged in no "stalking" of him, and in fact have only encountered him on some 3 or so different Misplaced Pages articles throughout my entire participation here, all interrelated and all within the last few weeks. Furthermore his assertion that I have "taken over" his talk page is a malicious falsehood, as '''I have never even made a single edit there'''.

	Two weeks ago I filed an RfC against Cberlet and another user for behavior that was plainly disruptive and plainly POV on the ] article, where we were both editing and where Cberlet was pushing for the addition of his own articles as sources without disclosing his authorship. This was done after multiple failed attempts by me to engage Cberlet in a discussion of the edits he was attempting to make, which I disputed due to NPOV problems. The RfC was successful in attracting several new participants in the editing of this article who assisted in improving its neutrality and led to an agreement to remove the POV tag from the article.

	Shortly thereafter I began extensive development on the ] (SPLC) on a dispute the SPLC had with ] involving an attack on Horowitz they published by Mr. Berlet. While adding the Horowitz-SPLC material to the SPLC page, I also updated the ] article to reflect these additions and his role in the Horowitz-SPLC controversy. I also participated in a discussion with Nobs and several other users on the Chip Berlet article's talk page regarding the appropriateness of using a chart Chip Berlet drew as a source on Misplaced Pages. I contended that using this chart as a source was inappropriate per ] because it is a partisan political piece and comes from a very partisan non-scholarly author. In response to this discussion, another editor proposed moving it to the ] article's talk page where the chart is presently in use. I did so and posted a note there politely requesting other editor input.

	Yesterday Cberlet arrived at the ] article - which is about him - and began posting demands that the Horowitz material, which is critical of him, be substantially diminished or removed entirely. This was done in a crudely posted demand, which he entitled '''"Help! A giant blob of Horowitz hit my page!"''' He also reacted in hostility to the discussion I initiated on the ] article about the inappropriateness of using a partisan non-scholarly chart. Now he is accusing me of making "personal attacks" on him for pointing to his lack of accredited scholarly credentials as a reason why his chart does not rise to the level of encyclopedic quality per ].

	In short, what we have here is the case of an editor who happens to have a wikipedia article about himself and is hypersensitive to any edit to that article or related material that he does not personally approve of, no matter how sourced it is or if it is neutrally presented. And that includes statements by other well known authors such as Horowitz that criticize Mr. Berlet's viewpoints and tactics. In seeking this mediation he is accordingly attempting to suppress valid sourced criticism of himself and attempting to control a valid ]-based discussion on whether material cited to him is appropriate or not under wikipedia's source citation standards. As wikipedia generally frowns upon contributers who make autobiographical edits and who attempt to self-cite or self-promote their own material it is my belief that Cberlet's complaints are entirely inappropriate and entirely out of line. ] 21:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

	: I have also engaged Mr. Berlet on some of the articles and talk pages he mentions and I feel he is being incredibly misleading in his description of activities there. There has been an ongoing dispute in articles pertaining to Soviet espionage and the ] which originally was contained to a few such as ] (where I edited significantly) but has spread to others. A few editors such as Nobs, Jnc (Noel), and myself have attempted to rationally explain the edits in the face of repeated and unsubstantiated accusations that the material is POV original research as well as summary deletions by a few users. Cberlet has inserted himself into this matter and while there has been some progress there is still a fundamental objection being made as to the written material, often not clear how or why but the tags and dispute remain. This itself is not being claimed as a reason for require mediation and Nobs is certainly not "stalking":

	# The articles in dispute with him as far as I have seen were all in the process of being edited by Nobs before Cberlet became involved in talk as much as he currently is.
	# The very purpose of user talk pages is to allow other users to contact with less content-oriented issues; this gives the appearance of Cberlet simply attempting to hide and eliminate sources of criticism.
	# If Mr. Berlet does not wish to engage critics of his off-site work then he should not either respond to such comments left in his talk (as he recently did) and he should not involve himself in an article pertaining to himself.

	: Also, I have seen Rangerdude's edits to the SPLC and Berlet articles before this request was posted and while there can certainly be stylistic differences over the material they are valuable contributions that do not deserve wholesale deletion simply because the subject of criticism objects -- that would be a poor precedent for this site in general.

	: What the users here need to do is disassociate personal feelings from content disputes. Criticism and edits in similar topics do not necessitate "stalking" in the absence of stronger evidence. --] 00:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

	I approached ] at 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) with a specific request in good faith to work together to resolve a myriad of disputes and assist me in stopping vandalism to the ] page. Within 15 hours, beginning at 11:20, 30 July 2005, he himself
	began massive revisions with unsourced questionable material . ] 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	:More evidence of Cberlet's good faith editing, twice blanked the page at and at 22:24, 28 July 2005 and 22:31, 28 July 2005. ] 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	::As of this filing I have had 3 postings on the ] page, the first was an invitation to interested parties to discuss the "peculiarities" of Stone's case on 23 July; on 27 July I interjected a discussion of the facts of the case . Cberlet responded with "So you admit" something or other, and " because you are a militant anticommunist", and "Is that your position, at long last?", which I understood to be personal references to me, and not a contribution to the discussion at hand. I explained as much in my next posting, and proceeded to take the opportunity to engage Cberlet in good faith on his Talk page, as cited above, in effort to seek understanding and compromise. Also, it will be seen between 6 June and this filing I had exactly 2 edits on the main ] article, the second being a restoration of the Kalugin evidence at the request of User:Gamalial, so he could see for himself. ] 00:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	Note to prospective Mediator thinking of taking this case: The series of personal smears by Cberlet directed at me must be addressed first, in point, in kind; he has been asked to focus discussion on the subjects in the articles. ] 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	:] "Political affiliation attacks", i.e. "you are a militant anticommunist" ] 02:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

	:::Now Rangerdude, Nobs, and Sam Spade are working as a tag team. I propose combining this mediation with the one at I am walking away from Wiki for a week to let matters cool down.--] 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	] wants to change the article of this video game to state that it is a prequel of a previouis game in the series, ]. Myself and other users believe it to be a re-telling of the story, and it has been discussed thoroughly on ]. On the main talk page, various unbiased facts used in the discussion have been presented by myself and Dai Grepher, and a poll has been held to determine a consensus. Not including him or myself, there have been 8 votes, none supporting his theory. I have also changed the wording in the article to be ambiguous on the subject. Some further guidance would be appreciated. --] ] 04:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

	*In my opinion, based on cursory examination, this is not a case for mediation, as it is not a dispute about interaction styles and personality, but rather about the actual content of Misplaced Pages. As such, use of polls seems appropriate, and failure to abide by them is more of a disciplinary matter than anything else. Note that if stray polls are not good enough for either side, take it to the Village Pump, and you'll get about as much legitimacy as is possible on Misplaced Pages. --] 04:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	===Between ] and ]===
	Not sure if this will be valid, but lately I've found that I've been very abrupt and have stepped on ''many'' toes (see ] and ] - two ''excellent'' editors I've snapped at who've since left!) Then, I've been participated in ] and ]. Then there was the whole blocking of the NSW schools netblock... I also administered the ] which resulted in the blocking of ] for 24 hours due to disruption. Then there's my reverting of ].

	So... I'm wondering if a spot of mediation might be needed here. Or perhaps I need a wikibreak... though I have several articles I want to improve. That's why I'd like to try mediation. - ] 03:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

	:I have blocked your account for one week. Go take some rest! (Nyuk, nyuk, just kidding ;-) ] 02:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
	:: blows raspberry - ] 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	:Why don't you just avoid doing anything controversial for a while? Start or expand an article, do RC patrol, copyedit...the most important work on Misplaced Pages actually involves a very low risk of conflict. ] 05:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	::Ya... probably a good plan. Have been steadily working on ]. - ] 07:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	:::Oh, P.S. - I actually did. See ]. You'll note that this was a genuine article, where I actually secured material under the GFDL - it got placed on VfD and it has been suggested that I am a "troll". - ] 07:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	::::An ''Adequacy Style Troll'' or just a troll in general? ] ( ] \| ] \| ] ) 14:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

	===Between ], ], ] and ]===

	See ]. User Mandel has requested for mediation. Between user Mandel and a group of pro-school "inclusionists", as they call themselves, consisting of the first three Wikipedian users, user Mandel feels they have been using their personal powers to form an "pro-school" bloc to unceremoniously shoot down all the views of people voting against school articles in VfD. They have been most active in VfD. So far user Mandel have been unable to get much comments from people outside, but their attitudes is reducing real discussion - to this one user their attitude is snobbish, elitist and infuriating. It's almost like bullying people against a vote. Would request mediation. ] 20:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

	*This is really about deletion policy, "inclusionism" and stubs. Was there a request for comment on this issue recently? ] 15:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	Is this page going to be locked forever? Discussion has been a standstill for a over a week, and Mike Garcia hasn't even weighed in at all to justify his position. Can this be resolved? ] 16:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

	*Page unlocked. This was the wrong place to bring this up, by the way; isn't anyone checking the ]? ] 17:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

	===] ===

	{{user\|TelAvivKid}} aka {{user\|ProudWHITEIsraeli}} (the latter name having been blocked) seems to have some quite disagreeable views (like sending all African Americans "home"). Pro-Israeli POV pushing and even what might be construed as personal attacks particularly on the VFD relating to ]. Now, I'm not really very familiar with this user, and it all gets caught up in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This could go to RFC but I would like a mediator to atleast try to reason with him first. ]\|] 16:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

	:He was a strawman sockpuppet of Alberuni, intended only to make Israelis and Jews look bad. He's been banned. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

	*Wrong place to bring this up, but no harm done. Thanks for "cross-pollinating", Jay - if that's the word for it! ] 17:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	I try to make some changes and minor fixes but ] takes turns with ] in reverting the edits. ] refuse to use the talk page, but I have had some progress with ] on the talk page, but the major issue remains. ] and ] have also tried talking with ], but with no success. // ] 10:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Did you write ''The more correct term "homo opression" have not gained widespread acceptance.''? If so, please re-read our (lengthy) ] policy, in which you will note that Misplaced Pages does not call any particular political term "correct" or "incorrect". We merely describe how people feel about their use. ] 19:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

	:: It is indeed more correct since homophobia isn't a form of phobia, but I have since changed it to simply ''"The term..."'' and then removed it entierly. // ]

	User Liftarn keeps mixing relatively non-controversial edits with absurdly POV (and often grammatically poor/redundant) edits; for example, he can't seem to see that "the more correct term homo oppression" is a POV statement intended to promote a neologism he has invented. I've tried working with him on the Talk: page, but regardless of the evidence provided he seems wedded to his own version of reality. I've also requested that he enter the non-controversial edits in separately, and work through the controversial ones on the Talk: page, but with little success. His M.O. seems to be revert first, then Talk:; for example, his most recent edit was to revert, then request mediation here, then respond in Talk:. He has even gone so far as to repeatedly compare me to a Holocaust Denier, even though I have pointed out several times how offensive that is. I welcome mediation. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

	: It should be noted that almost all of ]'s claims above are either false or distortions. For instance I have removed the controversial edits as per the Talk page, but Jayg keeps reverting anyway. There may be some edit Jayjg finds controversial, but I haven't been mentioned on the Talk page. The reference to "homo opression" have since been removed and I did not invent it (if I would have invented it it would probably be something like "HBT opression"). I (and some others) have tried talking with Jayjg, but when somebody thinks every witness lies and every newspaper article is a forgery it is a bit of a problem. // ]

	*Guys, guys! This is not the time or the place. Please just indicate whether (a) you are willing to enter into Mediation over this matter or (b) you are not willing. ] 17:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


	:I've already done so, Ed. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

	I think Jayjg can handle this himself. But if he asks for my opinion, I think this mediation is a ridiculous waste of time. Liftarn inserts an immense amount of pov in the political epithets page; enough that most users when reading his changes, use common sense and revert it to a normal version. For example, his definition of unamerican is "anyone who disagrees with the user." If he was a serious editor, and we were in the middle of some factual discussion that we couldn't reach consensus on, then yes, I'd accept mediation, but this is just a case of a pov pusher not getting it that his edits on that particular page don't belong or are not up to wikipedia policy.

	] 16:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

	: I agree that mediation may is a ridiculous waste of time since Jayjg had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Talk page. Most of what have been done on the Talk page is what I have managed to figure out by trial and error. Jayjg (Guy Montag have never even bothered using the Talk page) just goes "No! No! No!" without stating what he feels to be wrong. Some things I have to figure out, but then the problem is that he demands insane ammounts of evidence before he can even consider abonding some of his pet theories (he for instance seem to think that Boston Globe, The Guardian and The New York Times are "crank extremist websites". That is why I think it's absolutley necessary to get some mediation. // ]

	====Contributors willing to mediate this issue====
	#
	#
	#
	#


	====Contributors who refuse to participate in Mediation====
	#
	#
	#
	#

	===]===
	I would like to add the following words to the John Howard biog page:

	''- During the sixties, whilst the issues of the conscription and Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war were the dominant political issues, Howard, though eligible for war service as a young man of 24 chose, instead, to further his career'',

	The facts are, as I see them,
	-John Howard has been a pro-militarist all his adult life.He publically supported conscription (for which he was too old by 3 years) and the prosecution of the Vietnam war by Australia and the US
	-As a young man he chose not to volunteer
	-As prime minister he sent more than a thousand young men and women to a war zone to await their fate
	-This is an important contradiction of his personal life.
	-Certain users (2) will not allow this fact to be stated
	-These users will not reach agreement
	-I will abide by mediation Eric A. Warbuton

	ONE WEEK LATER: whats going on? Absolutely NO attempts at mediation by anyone. Why has this issue been bypassed? Hello is anyone there in Misplaced Pages-mediation land?
	I await your verdict patiently (but not forever) Eric A. Warbuton

	:It appears to me that this is pushing your POV. I don't think anyone wants to see this in the article. I'm no Howard supporter, but suggest that this is not something that would add to the article. - ] 07:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	<s>Continuing battle between ] and myself over the London Bomber's article - most of it is catalogued on the discussion page, I guess at its core I feel he's being factually inaccurate and stressing his own POV, and I would assume his complaint is the opposite, that I'm being too liberal or something. Constantly reverting the page whenever I edit it, back to his ideal...don't want this to turn into an edit war ] 19:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)</s>

	:This is an inappropriate RfM in my view. The issue is whether we should include in the introduction a reference to the number of people who died during 7/7. I think we should. Sherurcij thinks not. We should start by putting up an article RfC or asking for a third opinion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

	::It's more than just that in fairness, constant reverts of the lead image and such, but I just googled "requests for" on site:wikipedia.org because I couldn't remember what the term was, if you want RfC instead, go for it - and if you happen to remember the code for strikethrough, feel free to do so on this request ] 00:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

	:::I've struck through your request as you asked. I'm going to try a third opinion first, and if that doesn't help, then an article RfC. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

	===] ===
	;also , ], ], ]
	There are continuing NPOV disputes about several articles about the Catholic Church during the Nazi period and allegations of complicity or moral error contributing to the Holocaust. These disputes are often intense and not always civil. The articles in question include ], ], ], and ]. A Request for Comments was posted previously, and I came in as an outsider. The dispute appears to be primarily between ] and ]. One of them is stating that arbitration may be necessary. I am suggesting mediation as a less drastic measure.
	] 16:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
	::User ] has opened a ] against ] and so would appear to have become a party in the dispute rather than an outsider.

	===]===
	There is a ridiculous edit war here between 4 users. A group of 3 vs. 1. The argument rages around whether it should be "Missing Sun myth" or "Missing sun motif". The discussion on the talk page about this is really very heated. P.s. I am not involved. ] 23:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
	*I would volunteer for this request -Ril-, if the involved parties would indicate their willingness to enter into mediation. -] 04:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

	Two of them (] and ]) currently are the subject of arbitration - at ], so this mediation may have to wait or not be necessary. ] ( ] \| ] \| ] ) 14:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

	=== ] ===

	] appears to have decided that any talk page comments he doesn't like are actually personal attacks. He is now removing other users' comments from ]; ], ], and ], using ] as an excuse to do so, and does not appear inclined to stop. Rather than becoming involved in a nasty edit-revert war, I am submitting this to th eWikipedia community to be settled. --] 11:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

	I can support ]'s statement above through my own experience of ]'s handling of communication and constructive criticism on Misplaced Pages. This user has arbitrarily edited my reasonable comments on ] on the grounds of "removing personal attacks" on multiple occasions (see , , ) and reverted my restoration of them (see , , ). It is my opinion that my comments were reasonable (albeit firm), and were merely reporting on the facts of the matter at hand. In addition, ] has avoided addressing the specific points in my reasonable requests for the use of reputable sources in article writing on this user's talk page, communicating rudely to me whilst avoiding the question when answering and refusing to conform to NPOV policy (see my messages on ] , ; for AI's response on my talk page, , ). In addition, ] has accused me of making personal attacks, which is an untrue accusation (ref. ). --] 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
	: I must, however, report that following recent communication today with this user, ] responded politely and pleasantly to my most recent message on his talk page. Thus, I believe that it may be possible for the matter to be resolved without recourse to disciplinary measures and shows a willingness to cooperate on this user's part. --] 23:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Modemac claims that I have decided that '''any''' talk page comments I don't like are actually personal attacks. This is a lie and just a personal attack upon me by Modemac. I '''only''' removed ''personal '''comments''''' and ''personal '''attacks''''' from the articles talk page as ''personal '''comments''''' there qualify as ''personal '''attacks'''''.,, I only removed ''personal '''attacks''''' from Modemac's talk page.,,, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines support my action to remove such ''personal comments and attacks''. This request is an attempt to discredit me. However, I tolerate the advance of this mediation request. References: ], ], ], ]. --] 12:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

	*Should be an RFC first; I don't see 2 parties seeking a Mediator here. ] 02:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

	*You could also take this to ] if you wanted, I suppose. ] 02:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

	:: I'll wait until AI returns from the 3RR block, and see what happens then. If the problem continues, I'll do an RfC; then again, there's also an arbitration in progress as well (which was asked for by another person). --] 09:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	I have been stalked by multiple admins who are all sock puppets of one another. I have made ] which I expect them to destroy before I can finish typing this. You may also see my . The person behind the sock puppets (who have all reached admin status no less). Notice how those like ] who locked my talk page after he vandalized it further so vandalism would remain; as my user page says "check their contribs. Not one contacted another before doing the same vandalism that they did before". I had not logged in for many many weeks and then once I do, I make a new page and instantly ] who already has stalking problems from him, noted ] and ] basically hits refresh on my contribs 24 hours a day despite me being gone--obvious stalking. When I made a page about wiki stalking, ] switched to his sock puppet ] and deleted it without discussion beforehand, no vfd, nothing. I did not know this and was editing the page to make it better and when I resave it I am banned for recreating it. Then ] bans me again not knowing the new software allows me to edit my user page after a ban. Well, basically, I am sick of having these sock puppets rule wikipedia--they are admins and you let them do this. Admins on wikipedia violate our rules, turn against everyone here, and abuse their powers all the time. Obviously I am not alone. I request my talk page be fixed from those other user's vandalism. I cannot edit it myself anymore thanks to ]! ] 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

	:I know trolls shouldn't be fed, but I admit looking at this users contributions from time to time to remove his trolling. I'm glad others do too, obviously. --]\|] 22:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

	:I accept your request for mediation, on two conditions: One, that you apologize for this comment and other unacceptable personal attacks: "Rhobite = faggot stalker and sockpuppet". Two, that you stop baselessly accusing me of being Willmcw's sockpuppet. Thanks. ] 22:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

	:This is so absurd that I really don't know how to respond. -] 07:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

	*'''Belongs on RFC (or maybe just block for disruption?).''' ] 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

	===]===
	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)
	::aggressive tactics are necessary when dealing with historical distortions and lies in what's supposed to be a reliable encyclopedia. ] 04:13, 21 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)

	Greetings comrades, I am still on my break, but I just had to drop into a Bangkok cybercaf and see what was transpiring here. Could Uncle Edward clarify what exactly he going to try and mediate? The facts of recent Cambodian history? Or the conflict between R Lopez's campaign to turn Misplaced Pages into an online edition of the 1952 Great Soviet Encyclopaedia and my campaign to get Communist POV-peddlars banned from Misplaced Pages? If the former, he is welcome to try and I will be as co-operative as I can. If the latter, there is really nothing to mediate. Either Lopez ceases his propaganda efforts or he does not. If he does, we can all go and write articles about Etruscan pottery or whatever we would much rather be doing. If he does not, I and others will continue to resist him for as long as it takes to get him banned. Kopkun-krup. ] 11:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
	:Is there an arbitration process on specific pages that can determine that a certain version is correct, period, or is ArbCom just for behavior that violates wik rules? ] 04:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

	Another editor has drawn to my attention that Lopez is also inserting <s>his lying propaganda</s> into other articles relating to receent Cambodian history, such as ], which are not on my watchlist, but will be when I get home and back to my references. So more edit wars will be coming up unless Lopez can be persuaded or compelled to desist. ] 06:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Please ] at Misplaced Pages. You can say ''pushing a POV'' instead. ] 15:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

	::But that's not accurate. Adam is saying that Lopez is adding things that are simply untrue. Not that he is adding biased information that supports one side of an issue, but that he's actively adding untrue information, which would be straight-up vandalism, and worth noting. ] 20:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

	:If Adam is merely exasperated at what really is the insertion of "untrue" info, then we need an RFC and possibly a user block on whoever is disrupting Misplaced Pages by POV pushing. I don't think Mediation is possible here. ] 23:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

	In any case I can no longer accept Ed Poor as a mediator after his extremely unprofessional conduct towards me in another matter. ] 07:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Adam, when you describe my conduct as "extremely unprofessional" it hurts my feelings. Please do not make this kind of personal remark about me again. ] 12:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	::Then don't do extemely unprofessional things, like blocking me for something I did not do, then refusing to reply to my objections. ] 05:08, 23 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==

	=== ] in dispute with ] ===

	A long debate has insued on the ] page over what items are considered human rights. There seems to be no potential for resolution. Using as a basis, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva conventions, I (Barneygumble) contend that the following are not human rights and should be removed: The number and ethnicity of prisoners, the existance of supermax prisons, the lack of full government healthcare, gay marriage, the fact that convicted felons are not allowed to vote, the fact that euthanasia is outlawed, and abortion. These are social issues. My opponents, have offered no real factual basis for their inclusion of these so-called human rights into the article and rely on broad terms like "widely considered." Some others would refuse to discuss my points and then revert my changes citing "censorship." Details of the arguement can be seen here first: and then I finally at least began to get a debate here:

	*I'll volunteer to mediate this if both parties are comfortable with me and are willing to participate in the mediation process. -] 15:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

	:: It's fine by me ]

	:: It's fine with me. My position, in brief, is that an article about human rights in the United States obviously must include sources that specifically address human rights in the United States (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc) and that an informative article will naturally contrast what are considered rights in other parts of the world with what are considered rights under US law. For example, if universal medical care is considered a basic human right in some countries but not in the United States, we should note this in the article. I'm afraid I'm having some difficulty understanding why BarneyGrumble finds this so deeply objectionable. --] 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
	:::Maybe it has something ot with the fact that {{vandal\|Barneygumble}} is an obvious ]--] 15:07, 11 August 2005 (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)


	===]===
	;] ]
	: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:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee