| Revision as of 20:39, 6 February 2006 editTisthammerw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,242 edits →Uncited material challenged on the [] entry: New RfC← 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 --> | |||
| Please list new requests at the top of the section 'to be accepted by committee'. Use LEVEL THREE HEADERS (===). A mediator from ] will be assigned to take care of your case. | |||
| == New Requests == | |||
| ===] article and ] article=== | |||
| Requesting mediation between ] 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) and user ] for the purpose of stopping a perpetuating revwar that ] is perpetuating. He is also bothering me on the article ] and refuses to contact the author of the software about this despute. {{unsigned|Eggster}} | |||
| :Eggster has reverted NiMUD 4 times today and online creation <strike>3</strike> 4 times already. Facts (via Google Groups) supporting the version that I reverted to are on the talk page(s) and within the article itself. ''Regarding the part where he wants me to contact the author'': he wants me to e-mail -him- (he is the author using a fake persona) and ask him when he first released his software. I say that quoting his own Usenet postings from the mid-90's is going to be far more accurate than asking him about it today. We've already asked him, and all the things that he bases his claims on are relative to something else. The usenet posts he wrote have specific dates, while the times he is giving are things like "X happened before around the same time as when I did Y", where Y happened on some other date. His "proof" is that Y happened. In one of my edit summaries I told him to ask Locke about the dates, because this fake persona is allegedly getting his info from Locke, and is not Locke himself. Since Locke posted the usenet articles, he can pretty easily glance at them and say "oh yeah, I wrote those, oops, sorry I gave you wrong info". ''Regarding the reason that I reverted it today'': he's claiming that his software is ], while text from him in the article disagrees (in fact at one part it complains that people are not e-mailing him in order to follow his license). He is in total understanding of why I am in disagreement with the words public domain, as evidenced by the talk page where he wrote "It may not be public domain, but it is public." right after editing the page to say "public domain" again. --] 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::An example of Eggster deleting links to Locke's usenet posts with specific date info and replacing it with relative dating info is shown in . --] 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a sock puppet of ] who has been vandalizing NiMUD source code since 1994. Original copies of NiMUD were distributed in late ]. Every day for the past three months he's been reverting and censoring my attempts to get to the truth, including not talking to the original author like I have been. I'd like both Thoric and Atari2600tim to be banned from editing this article. ] 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've corrected things that are obviously wrong, as I am unfamiliar with your software and Thoric's software (Thoric wrote the SMAUG OLC system) and have never used either (thus, I am no expert on you guys' stuff). However, the obvious things that I myself can see have been getting fixed by me. I think someone can look at me and Thoric and see if we're sock puppets of each other or not fairly easily. Eggster however is the person listed in the article and referred to as Locke. He's using a new alter-ego lately named Eggster in hopes of taking advantage of the "don't bite the newbies" policy, but in the past has used multiple accounts with , so I'd suggest against treating him as a newbie. Here are some things I have fixed on one or both of the articles, but were changed back to being incorrect at least once by Locke/Eggster at some point: | |||
| ::::*NiMUD being based on Merc, but allegedly was released before Merc 1.0 was. | |||
| ::::*Thoric found more detailed dates via Google Groups' usenet archives, and | |||
| ::::*It's the first game world editor to have modes. | |||
| ::::*NiMUD is getting described as public domain, yet it includes code from Diku and Merc, neither one of which is public domain or ever can be. Details about NiMUD's license were mentioned in the article, complaining that not enough people were e-mailing him, which is a requirement that Locke added on to the Merc and Diku rules. Somehow it still gets described as public domain. | |||
| ::::*That his online creation system is the "standard" for all Diku derivatives, while there are many many derivatives with his system or other systems, and also Diku does not come with his one packaged with it. | |||
| ::::*For a while, the existance of all other software with similar name and functionality was deleted from the article. | |||
| ::::There's more, but this is not a talk page, so I think that's enough to get the point across and hopefully not make someone waste time trying to deal with this situation when he has no intention of working with mediation. I started an -unofficial- mediation request (in hopes of leaving you guys alone to focus on more important things) via the Mediation Cabal, which is at ]. Unfortunately the masses of communications between Locke and Thoric seems to have ran off the guy who volunteered (since he hasn't posted to it lately), I believe that this request right here was made in bad faith as some kind of revenge for starting the Mediation Cabal request. --] 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I posted here to seek fairness- the cabal mediator was a sock puppet. ] 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{npa}} ] 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Users considering wikipedia as a tool for Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean nationalism=== | |||
| Several users, e.g. ], ] and ], are busy renaming Assyrian(s) into Syriac(s) in several articles, even creating an erroneous "Syriacs" box (]) abusively including Lebanese in this category, deleting the content of the ] article, or trying to put back non-accurate mentions of an Ancient Assyrians ancestry of modern Assyrians into the ] article. It seems impossible to stop them reverting some articles and adding nonsense into some others. --] 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have nothing to do with the renaming since I myself is against it to be honest. Since Syriacs are Suryoye and Suryoye is translated into Suryani in Turkish and that can not be used for all Assyrians according to me. Your insulting the whole Assyrian people by calling the Assyrians today having nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. Its proved that the Assyrians had two kingdoms after their empire falled, those kingdoms were Osroene and Adiabene. There are evidents that the Persians let 400 Assyrian "politicans" executed because they tried to establish a reborned Assyria in those Assyrian kingdoms who were left. I think its really insulting what you are doing, Pylambert.--] 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Uncited material challenged on the ] entry=== | |||
| On the ] entry it is claimed that the concept comes from comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy. This material has been challenged and ]. A month after the citation request was made, no citation was provided and so I removed the challenged material under ]. It has triggered a revert war and the subsequent ] seems to have failed to resolve the matter, since editor FeloniousMonk insists on reinserting the uncited challenged material, claiming that no citation is necessary despite my quoting of ] to the contrary. --] 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A day after the request was made four or five cites were offered on the talk page, with (aborted) discussion about which would be best. One is now in the article. Wade is, as usual, screaming for a cite which has verbatim the content of the WP article. We've explained to him that would be either a copyvio or Gutenberg. He remains tendencious. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems that Wade is a seeker of direct absolute verbatim quotes rather than being able to read between the lines. ] 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not screaming for "verbatim," a paraphrase will do. '''But the quotes are not instances of Bertanlaffy describing the concept''' of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed (which is Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity"). Take for instance this ]: | |||
| ::::The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components | |||
| :::'''This is not the same concept''' as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. Furthermore, the quote does not give a page number to where it can be found and is thus not quite ]. My request for mediation still stands. --] 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I gave it twice now. ''Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life, 1952, Pg. 148''. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At the time no page number was given. I am glad you have finally acceded to my request. Nonetheless, the quote I mentioned does not contain the concept of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. --] 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wade, I can understand you saying "I never saw the page number given." But saying it was never given is basically accusing me of dishonesty, which I do not appreciate. See ] where the page number was indeed given, by me, at 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC). ]<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How is it "basically accusing" you of "dishonesty"? You did not say that you had the page number ''at the time I made the claim here''. Incidentally, I'm sorry I missed the link you mentioned. But I based my "no page number" claim on the fact that I requested the page number on the current talk section, a request that you declined to answer (See the "Mind giving a page number for that?" question , though you'll have to use Control-F or something similar to locate that question). Little did I know that you added a page number to the article after I last checked it, without actually responding to my request in the talk section. Nevertheless, I should have checked the main article just to be sure, and for that I apologize. | |||
| :::::::Still, the quote I mentioned (the one which your citation seems to refer to given your subsequent posts) does not contain the concept of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. So my request for mediation still stands. --] 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Note:''' ] has started a ]. (You can find the old RfC section ].) --] 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I'm requesting Mediation on the article ]. Please go to the talk page, and scroll all the way down to the bottom. This anonymous user, always starting with the IP 84.59, has been harassing multiple users on this page with personal attacks, violating the 3RR many times reverting any edits, disputing any change to the page as POV, etc. He then takes anyone who disagrees with him, and threatens to bring a RfC for them, which is a violation of WP:POINT. The anon claims factual and historically indisputable information (to wit: that the official name of the 2003 invasion operation was Operation Iraqi Freedom) is propoganda, and reverts any efforts to show otherwise. He singlehandedly brought on the +protection of the page. ] has been trying to clean up that entry, which is several times the recommended size, and has a size warning on the top. Pookster11 used content forking to cut large sections out of the current article and give them their own article, leaving a link to the new one in their page. This is common Wikiquette, and good editing policy. However the anon continually reverts Pookster's efforts, then accuses him of deleting things, and finally tries to lecture EVERYONE on the proper use of Misplaced Pages, when he isn't even doing it himself. Anyone who disputes with him is the butt of personal attacks on their talk pages: I am no exception. This user has repeatedly attacked me on my talk page. Please come to the talk page, and mediate this guy, so we can do something about him, before I have to submit a RfA. Thanks. ] 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::user has a pending request for comment. ] 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| User/admin has repeatedly moved a comment discussing the inappropriate nature of the user comment RFC ] out of the Response section and into another section against the wishes of the poster, ]. The relevent instructions in the Response section state: | |||
| :This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section." | |||
| ] believes that only "Congress" may post in the Response section per the instructions, and has reverted the submitted comments 3 times. ] also unilaterally blocked the IP and account of the submitter for 1 hour for "disruption and incivility" after having been warned that he would be reported for repeatly moving the submission contrary to the Response instructions, in an attempt to prevent the user from raising this dispute with any third party in a timely manner. | |||
| ] 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. I was trying to be helpful (and I think anyone with RfC experience will agree that his concerns are better categorized as an "outside view") when this user started attacking me and edit warring. We don't have to put up with this crap, and Mediation isn't the right place to take this anyway. ANI is, and I've already posted it there myself. — ''']''' '']'' <small>]</small> 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyone with RFC experience will agree that you cannot RFC an entire branch of government. By its own terms a User Conduct RFC is only appropriate for a single user. That means that a comment that the RFC is unjustified (as against Misplaced Pages policy) properly belongs on the Response section. Your insistance that only "Congress" can post in that section is clearly contrary to the instructions, and at this point only an issue with you, not others. ] 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| A section entitled "Scientist?" was introduced originally to attempt a compromise with another editor. With further exposure to Misplaced Pages, I have recognized that this section not only constitutes original research, but relies on weasel words for its entire backbone. I removed the section and supported all my reasons in talk. One editor who disagreed (I assume) kept reverting, then blocked me inappropriately. Two of his (I can only assume) friends, have now joined, and instead of addressing the issues, they have mounted a revert campaign coupled with (mild) personal attacks (calling me obsessive, accusing me of being other editors {aka sock puppets, even though they are located in a different state}, telling me to stop repeating what others tell me to say, etc.). I am asking for review of the talk pages, as well as article's section (now added back by another editor who also attacks and says he can't see my arguments, rather than trying to resolve the matter). When I contacted one of the editors in question, s/he removed my query with a "troll" comment. I believe that a consensus cannot be made with these three as they are determined to push a POV that is based on weasel words. Please review and mediate. Thank you ] 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I have continued to support how this section violates ], but it is reverted again to the unsourced, anonymous assertions that are disputed. Second request for someone to mediate for lack of conformity to Wiki policy. 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: RfC seems to be unsuccessful. I have recapped the main dispute (the secondary dispute over the header seems to fall on how this dispute is settled). Thanks ] 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Seth believes there should not be a link to the net's oldest page on Nihilism. He hasn't given a reason for this except that he disagrees with the viewpoints on the page. I consider this abusive and would like to to know if others agree. He's now deleted the link 8-10 times and has still not given a reason. I'd like to have a clear reason for (a) the deletion and (b) why Seth's unprofessional, destructive and worryingly vengeful behavior is tolerated. Thank you in advance. ] 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Actually, I believe I have deleted the link more than 10 times, and its continual addition to the page is something I consider barely above spam. It is not thematically related to the page at all (the only similarities being references to Nietzsche and the word 'nihilism'), it has a history of making factually inaccurate claims, and doesn't represent what it claims to represent. I've given all these reasons on ] (with the exception of calling the link spam), and the only responses have been Prozak's and his friends'/sockpuppets' trolling (a worthwhile place to look regarding this would be the vandalism and flaming initiated by many of the people "arguing" for anus.com's inclusion on ], all accessible in their edit histories). Further, Prozak's claims that I am being authoritarian and unprofessional on this matter are a little absurd - I happen to be one of the very few people who contributes to ]. The only time I've removed contributions were when they were questionable and uncited or grammatically and stylistically supbar, and several of those I moved to the talk page rather than delete outright, in order to encourage editors to clean them up and re-add them. -] 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::ANUS, or the American Nihilist Underground Society, has published several articles on Nihilism. One, "How a Nihilist Lives," was reprinted in print zine "Air in the Paragraph Line," issue 10. We have been online since 1995 and were extensively represented on bulletin boards for seven years before that. Here are some articles: , , , and . Seth's hiding behind "not thematically related" as a way of disguising what he admits to be a dislike for the page, which he will say is "sub-par" instead of offering meaningful arguments for why it should not be included, while including many other pages of dubious relevance. Seth clearly has some personal agenda here, and it's damaging the quality of WikiPedia's information on this topic. Further, as can be noted through the history, I've contributed to the Nihilism article including the tedious task of grammatical cleanup. Seth, you've clearly got a personal and not professional issue here. ] 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Seth, I don't believe you've said why counterorder is allowed to be linked to but not ANUS. In fact, why does counter order link to ANUS if ANUS doesn't qualify in your little drama? Counter order, in your mind, clearly qualifies, but if they too feel ANUS is worth linking to then perhaps it isn't ANUS or counterorder that is at fault. --] 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I have been trying to break up the Abraham Lincoln article into smaller and more managable sections. I started out with an article on ]. Since I started that the user '''JimWae''' has been removing all of my working and continually reverting to previous versions of the work. First time he said to condense the early life and career section, which I started to do when my laptop's battery ran low and I saved the work so that I wouldn't lose it. I also decided to move to a more comfortable location in my home, and I opened up the Abraham Lincoln page to continue what I had started to find that once again every last change I had made had been removed once again by JimWae. Not even the link to the new article about Lincoln's early life was left in. I would like to proceed with this condensation, but get the feeling that no matter what lengths I go to that JimWae is just going to swoop in and erase every change I make and not even let me finish my work. ] 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I made one revert - 2 other editors made the other reverts. Complainant has not explained anything about what he intends to do other than say he wants to shorten article by creating sub-articles. He then left only a link to a sub-article in the main article. Editor has made zero other edits to article in last 6 months or more. He moved to immediate protection of the article, which somebody else reverted -- he is not even aware that it was someone else. Was he protecting it from himself too? His only response in the talk pages has been to complain that he should be allowed to do whatever it is he is doing before anyone else gets involved. Not having even tried to use the talk pages constructively, this editor is now attempting a waste of the mediation board's time --] 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====== | |||
| On the Nietzsche page, I added the link "Santayana's Criticism of Nietzsche"(http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Santayana's%20Criticism%20of%20Nietzsche.htm), and someone (I believe "Goethean") keeps deleting it. Santayana was one of the most important philosophers of the last 2 or 3 centuries, and his book "Egotism In German Philosophy" was very influential. I keep putting the link back under "Criticism." Today (1/24) I was accused by "Goethean" of "vandalism" -- rather funny, considering that it is he who has a penchant for deleting links. If anyone from the Mediation team can be of assistance, I would be grateful. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Very long and contentious dispute between {{user|Andries}} and two editors {{user|Thaumaturgic}} and {{user|SSS108}}. The former is a ex-follower and critic of the subject of the article, and the latter are current followers/proponents. Hundreds of discussions, numerous RfCs, page protection, and informal mediation have not produced any results that the sides can agree with. I request mediation on their behalf after guaranteeing their willingness to accept mediation (see ]. The request of one of the side is that the first order of business after a mediators comes forward, would be to set the level of expectations and get a sense from the parties about their willingness to compromise and agree to a desired outcome. Request is for OnWiki mediation, with an initial email exchange to assess expectations. ] <small>] • ]</small> 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This request has not been responded to and it is ten days old. Should we understand that there is no mediator willing to assist these editors with their dispute? If that is the case, what recourses are available to them? Any assistance will surely be welcome by these editors. ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What are the requirements for acting as a mediator? --] 02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone with patience and ability to seed some good-will amongst two opposing sides, and that can find a way forward. It does not require any specific knowledge, IMO, as this is mostly an interpersonal dispute and one related to the application of WP policy, rather than a content dispute.] <small>] • ]</small> 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am in no sense an official moderator. However, from your comments, I gather that official recognition is not seen as a requirement. If that is the case, then a request at the mediation cabal might have been in order. Be that as it may, no-one else seems to have stepped forward, so if it is agreeable to the parties, I will offer to moderate. I will contact the editors mentioned, and if they are willing to have me as a moderator, we can go forward. --] 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hope they all accept your kind offer. Good luck, and if you need any help at any point, please let me know. ] <small>] • ]</small> 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Francis Schuckardt=== | |||
| OnWiki mediation is needed here, not of the editorial type, but of a policy type; because the article on Francis Schuckardt is more akin to tabloid journalism than a compilation of facts that should be indicative of an encyclopedia. | |||
| When I first started editing this article about 3 months ago, it was replete with factual errors and scurrilous accusations, but supported with only two slightly relevant sources. I did a major edit to the article and verified the corrections and additions I made with 60 endnotes along with some on-page references. I proceed in a twofold manner: I only removed/replaced factual inaccuracies with verifiable facts and I left everything else essential intact (despite the fact the much of it was/is unverified) and chose to answer the many accusations rather than to simply delete them. I thought that this would give the reader both sides of the story and enable the reader to make up his/her own mind. I also made some additions which I felt were relevant to the overall article. | |||
| The problem lies in the fact that some, but two people in particular - James Reyes and George Wagner - continually remove verifiable statements and facts that do not suit their bias. Time and again I have had to reinsert verifiable facts they removed without explanation, only to find them removed again, without explanation (and in the process they would always inadvertently or intentionally cause the endnotes to be misplaced). I encourage to you read the discussion page to see my efforts to have them deal only with verifiable facts (they even edited the discussion page to remove statements/headings they didn't like). | |||
| A good example of this is to look at what they did after I made another edit on January 17th. They just wholesale removed vast portions, even entire sections, of whatever they opposed, without explanation; this is not editing, this is vandalism. | |||
| What they will not admit to, but what is obvious from an objective look into their "editing," is that they are hateful of Bishop Schuckardt and want to put forward their theories and biases without opposition or regard for the facts. I object to the idea of an encyclopedia being used for this purpose and I think they are harming the reputation of Misplaced Pages by such conduct and doing a disservice to the public in general. Let the facts speak for themselves, they can peddle their propaganda elsewhere. | |||
| I've just finished yet another reinsertion session of wrongfully removed facts and would suggest to use this as a starting point for any further revisions. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| Frater John 1/19/06 | |||
| ===], ], and ]=== | |||
| Everything below on this request is copies in from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Seemd like the most neutral approach. Sorry if it is too long. | |||
| I have already been through more than one month of a failed mediation over ] and ] and several realted pages pages with Nobs01, which then turned into a weeks-long arbitration in which Nobs01 was banned for a year. I am currently in a content battle with an editor deleting my edits and pledging to defend all of Nobs01 text entries. I have twice filed RFC's on these pages. The current one has produced no comments. In the meantime, all the text I would like comments on gets deleted. What do you seriously suggest? I have been trying to edit these pages for three months. I keep trying different wording and rewriting text. All I get in return is deletions. If I request mediation, I will be told to try "dispute resolution." I have been in dispute resolution on these pages for months. Give me a concrete suggestion that deals with these facts, please. I am desperate.--] 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So basically we have a user who has shown up following the ban of another user who is vowing to carry on that user's edit war? ] 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, it is more complicated than that, but not by much. God knows I am partly to blame for getting so frustrated. But I do try to discuss the matter and actually try to re-edit the material in various ways. But essentially this is a defense by an editor of Nobs01's one-side rendition of history in which my text cited to reputable published scholars is simply deleted because it is dubbed off-topic, or a minority viewpoint, or commie propaganda. I do not dispute that I am citing a a minority viewpoint, but I am arguing that some skeptical material from reputable published sources deserves inclusion. Here are some typical comments from ] and ] (and I forgot to mention ]): | |||
| :::*I have all the time in the world to ensure you dont destroy all the hard work that Nobs has put into VENONA related articles. But I suppose it must really irk you that "Chip Berlet", respected author, writer and self described "right wing watchdog" is being outwitted and out argued by a 28 year old engineer, who takes break during modeling, to contribute to an encyclopedia. Busy indeed. | |||
| :::*you have attempted to cram Navasky's weak ass defense in every article related to this subject | |||
| :::*And just for the record, don’t you even for a moment doubt Navasky’s motivation sin this debate? I mean, how many individuals fingered over the past decade has “The Nation Magazine” had on its payroll at some time? At least a dozen or so. I swear, its like the left is suffering from some form of collective cognitive dissonance over the issue of Soviet cold war penetration in the US. | |||
| ::So this is basically a POV warrior defending Nobs01's edits. Nobs01 was banned for amazing personal attacks, not the edit war, but my experience during the mediation led me to believe that Nobs01 was not able to get beyond his own highly POV view of reality to allow any critical disagreement or complication of the issues. That's where we are again. Same outcome on the text pages. I dread the thought of going back into mediation over the same pages, but...what else is there?--] 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean absolutely no insult, but I would be inclined to believe, having also edited these articles that your accusations of others having a POV or that THEY are the only ones who are POV warriors, is a big stretch. I think there is a strong polarization there of politics and there was also evidence of suspicious information removal on associated articles that I commented on in the talk pages here:. I'd be willing to make the articles conform completely with NPOV, but not if the current revert wars in all the related articles won't cease.--] 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not in any way involved in "suspicious information removal." In a number of instances I have actually edited out of these articles text that I support in an effort to find a compromise. I have tried different wordings. I have added text that supports the other side of the dispute in an attempt to find NPOV. The editor who defends Nobs01's text simply reverts what I write. I do not for a moment claim that I do not have a POV on this dispute, but I really think it is unfair for anyone to imply that I am involved in "suspicious information removal," or that I only am reverting. Both of these claims are false. On all of these pages the overwhelming bulk of text reflects one specific POV. Attempts to edit the relatively small skeptical and critical sections get reverted. | |||
| ::::Please recall that I spent over one month in a mediation process over these same pages which went in circles and revealed, at least to me, that Nobs01 was probably incapable of constructive collective editing. Despite this, I continued to engage in the mediation, until Nobs01 began an aggressive campaign of personal attacks that resulted in me filing an arbitration that resulted in his being banned for one year. (And there is evidence that Nobs01 briefly reappeared under a different name to edit some of these pages until being booted off). | |||
| ::::Nobs01 introduced biased and sometimes factually flawed and exaggerated claims on scores of pages. His posting of claims that hundreds of Americans had been identified as "Soviet spies" by the "U.S. Government" was a fantastic hyberbolic exaggeration. Am I going to be cyberstalked across the project by a POV warrior who has pledged to defend Nob01's text--factual or not--fair or not--if I try to edit it to be accurate and NPOV? Do you want an encyclopedia where the majority view gets to stomp on the minority view; and where exaggerated and false claims get defended based on political POV backed by bullying? Or do you want a real encyclopedia that fairly explores disputes cited to reputable published sources? If I ask for mediation again, are admins going to take this issue seriously? Because after three months, including a month-long mediation, and a month-long arbitration, the text on these pages is still POV and exaggerated and sometimes not accurate--and being defended against edits. --] 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mr. Berlet, I am not accusing you, (although it may have seemed that way), of removing the information in the articles that can be linked through those one day accounts. It just seemed spurious that Nobs had hardly been banned for a month when all these related articles that he worked on all go through an erasure of virtually every edit he did. I can't say who is biased, who is wrong or who is right with the evidence. I can offer you the opportunity to do a number of things. Your best bet is a ]. When I stumbled onto the ] and saw that almost the entire article had been erased , so seeing it as vandalism, I reverted that back and returned the page to the earlier state. The other option is to document your findings and once again, draw up an Rfc and if that fails, arbitration. I recognize that you already went through that and obviously feel very exasperated by this new influx of disagreement. But you are editing articles that do have very polarizing viewpoints, and the cases supporting and or denying that these people are spies can be be expected to also have some bias in them either way. Surely you can see this to be true. I did see that you do not just revert and that you do make an effort to adapt or NPOV certain passages that I am sure you have a strong enough disagreement with that your normal human inclination would be to revert, so I applaud that. You may also want to seek out assistance through the ] who will possibly be able to help you if you do go through mediation. I would be glad to assist as well, although I am not a mediator, nor interested in becoming one.--] 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As I have stated time and time again, until I am blue in the face, that the material you insist on putting in the article, is simply not relevant and in some cases does not accurately reflect the opinion of the source you have cited. On the Magdoff article, you continue to use a reference who has not specifically spoken about the subject at hand. You justify the inclusion of the material on the basis of it “balancing” the article, but that really does not mean anything, if it is not relevant than it is not appropriate to include . In another article you have used the same source, comments from Schrecker from 1998, to argue a different point, when as I have illustrated, the source no longer agrees with her 1998 statements . As far as the allegations of stalking go, remember how many fingers are pointing back at you. | |||
| :::: ''This page originated as a blacklist that falsely implied that the people on the list were Soviet espionage agents. I have only edited a tiny handful of pages with disclaimer material. '''I have been busy. There are many other pages I have not edited. I will get right on that important task. Thanks for reminding me''' '' | |||
| :::: Considering that many of the related pages have been recently vandalized by a pack of sockpuppets, I feel that my fears of the content being erased for sinister and underhanded motivations and the need for someone like myself to monitor these articles for such activities is more than justified. ; on and ; on , ; on , ; on and ; and on and , and lastly, on . | |||
| :::: One last thing, before I am painted with the guilt by association brush, let us not forget that Nobs was banned for his “conduct”, not his contributions. ] 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From my point of view as an outside observer to several articles he edited regularly, his content was also suspect at times. ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the truth.--] 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, but Nobs was not banned for content, he was banned for conduct. My dispute with Berlet is one of content. ] 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A dispute in which TDC does not edit, but merely deletes and reverts in defense of the text produced by Nobs01. Please note that I have repeatedly asked TDC to use my user name. Does TDC agree to mediation on these pages?--] 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: We have discussed this many times before, the information you are attempting to put in every article has nothing to do with the specific topic. And yes, I agree to mediation. ] 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Flcelloguy handled a previous mediation over these same pages. --] 15:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mediation is intended to further Misplaced Pages's overall objective of writing an encyclopedia, not to be forum for generating unsourced speculation that Prof. Harvey Klehr is part of a "Venona Posse" to "justify violations of civil liberties." | |||
| There may be a ], given the citations at | |||
| and the fact that the Misplaced Pages entry un ] states that he was is a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild and was managing editor of its publication during the time the National Lawyers Guild supported the ]. A Request for Mediation should be entered into in good faith, and not be driven by what may appear as a personal agenda to discredit or silence one's professional critics.--] 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is exactly this type of prejudice against my attempts to introduce skeptical material from reputable published sources--not "censor" exisitng material--that prompts my request for mediation. All my attempts to cite scholars and published material is deleted or gutted. I think it would be appropriate to ask Flcelloguy, who handled a previous mediation over these same pages, whether or not I made a serious attempt to take the mediation seriously and tried to act in good faith.--] 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not prejudiced against you or your POV. I am again, also not accusing you of removing information in related article to this one you have requested information on. I am fuly in agreement that there needs to be balance in these articles. I was just drawn to this after discovering huge mass deletions of information, a whitewashing of information, that you have claimed, essentially had no business being there since they were all misinformation from Nobs. I tend to disagree, but I am more than willing to conclude that I may be completely wrong.--] 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The ] article has a POV dispute. A philosopher who is a recent opponent of Cartesian Materialism has developed a very particular definition of the concept which he then dismisses. The dispute is about whether such a definition should be included as part of the definition of the concept or discussed later in the text. For example, if a philosopher defines the earth as a ball of custard and then denies that the earth could exist would it be right for Misplaced Pages to begin the article on "Earth" with "Earth is a ball of custard"? Furthermore, if Misplaced Pages did include such a definition then it might become widely accepted by naive readers who would then be persuaded that the Earth does not indeed exist ie: including such definitions is a POV and perversion of Misplaced Pages. Surely the correct approach is to define Earth in the usual way then, if the philosopher's ideas are widely known, to mention in the article that some people think earth is a ball of custard. | |||
| The dispute that needs mediation is between ] and myself. I believe the following version of the article is fair: Alienus will not permit any version except and has reverted to this endlessly or made minor edits and then demanded that people "contribute" rather than revert. ] 10:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, Loxley tried for an RfA but was rejected. In response, he was told to go for an RfC. Therefore, we should be doing an RfC now, not wasting your time with another RfM. And I say another because we had one before and Loxley was incorrigible. This is just a waste of time and I will not participate in it until an RfC is attempted. ] 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've thought about it, and I'm starting to wonder if Loxley has crossed the line into . He's launched personal attacks during mediation and arbitration. He's dragged me into this utterly pointless dispute process and wasted my time. | |||
| :Fundamentally, his changes are just plain bad. They're factually inaccurate and show gobs of bias against Dennett. He has made explicitly biased statements against Dennett, so this isn't just in my head. Allowing his changes would be contrary to doing the right thing. ] | |||
| ====Previous request for mediation ==== | |||
| This request for mediation has been put forward because Alienus and myself have been unable | |||
| to come to any agreement and the debate disintegrates. There is a history to this dispute. | |||
| It was part of a request for mediation by ] the mediation is at: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind | |||
| We were unable to obtain any prolonged third party input so the debate disintegrated. Given that the problem was a single issue I pushed it to arbitration, hoping that the arbitrators would simply decide the point one way or another: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F2.2F0.2F0.29 | |||
| The result of the arbitration was: | |||
| "Despite what loxley says, I feel that this is to a large extent a content dispute. If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject. James F. (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Reject as not a significant dispute, but I take the point that the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett. Fred Bauder 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| I have opened the issue at: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Religion_and_philosophy | |||
| as the arbitrators suggested. | |||
| However, we do need mediation, please. ] 09:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's true only if Loxley is speaking in the royal plural. Otherwise, ''we'' don't need mediation. Loxley does want it, because he's hoping he can once again find someone who doesn't have the time to do the research to discover that Loxley has a long-standing bias against Dennett and seeks to vandalize articles so as to denigrate Dennett. | |||
| :In my opinion, what we actually need is for Loxley to recognize that there is no place here for his anti-Dennett ''POV''. Nothing short of this will resolve the problem he caused by his complete and total lack of objectivity and relevant knowledge. ] 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I am requestion Mediation of this Gothic Metal articles current dispute between myself, ] and ]. The artcile went through a revision some time ago, after an discussion about the revision of the article which involved mainly me and the user Dante. The article by Consensus was concluded to be revised and as such was, with the revision duely posted and edited since. As such, the user Dante has come back, claiming that the article needs to be rewritten to the version they proclaim as 'theirs'. They are also making severe personal attacks at me and other users involved in this discussion, and referring to all users involved that disagree with him as Sockpuppets. These acts were both exhibited in the previous argument before the revision I have tried to be civil with this user and have tried every possible soloution on the dispute resoloution articles and civility articles, but this user seems to exhibit which is most worrying. I ask for meditation now so this dispute does not become a flame war, and fair conclusion is reached. ] 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I am willing to mediate this matter. I will drop a note to all three of you, and if you're ok with it, mediation can commense. --] 02:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I am also willing to learn to spell ''commence'' correctly. --] 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ] was blocked indefinitely (and unfairly) by request of ] due to user editing an article on Messianic "Judaism", using a totally NPOV, that conflicted with NathanZook's Messianic beliefs. | |||
| NathanZook then left a long, completely false, statement in User:OpenInfo's discussion page, and accused user of "Vandalism". | |||
| User replied, and then NathanZook requested that editor Jtkiefer ban user OpenInfo. | |||
| Jtkiefer is an editor who is well known for banning people without a second look. He accused OpenInfo of "threatening" NathanZook. | |||
| However, there were no "threats" made, only a statement saying that NathanZook was falsely accusing OpenInfo of: | |||
| - posting Christian links (check the history, it is untrue) | |||
| - fixing spelling mistakes (also false) | |||
| - several other edits (also false) | |||
| User OpenInfo merely stated that NathanZook must be either lying, or confused, due to the sheer volume of false accusations made. That was no threat, merely an observation. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I request mediation between ] and several of the participants in this RfC. The case is well described in this RfC, but basicly we need someone who will help us graduatly incorporate several of the changes Theo is trying to make in his significant rewrites of ], ] and several other articles. For reasons clarified in the RfC, I request that the person who will mediate in this case is 40 years, but preferably older. —'']'' 13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===], ], ], ], ], ]=== | |||
| It is argued according to several users that most articles, such as pedelec, electric bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, motor assisted bicycle are POV forks to the article ]. I do not agree and base this on the precences of ], ] and ] all being a type of ]. We have attempted to partake in discusion but this is mostly through deletion process because ] nominates this articles for deletion right away believing they are POV Forks. ] may also be involved. To plague the situation even more, there is debates on wheter we can include certain pictures into the article of ]. We have attempted to resolve these issues by talking on his user page but we still face the same old. Non inclusion of this information, according to me, though perhaps it may be neglibable, as JzG has stated (ie.: CCM bicycle), is a type of POV. JzG has indicated that that neglible things shouldn't be included. Since there is no importance add to the relevance of the information (from my source) it is obvious we will not be able state this vehicles relevance. However, we should not be distracted from the main issue. That is, the idea of no longer being able to develop other, though closelly related, different articles. A few months ago, I have even asked JzG if he could go into mediation and all he said was... "why?" So essential this mediation is for "POV Forking", deletionism and user conduct in regards to expanding articles. --] 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I object vigorously here. You need to start with a ] first here, Pat. And as far as I know, mediation isn't done like this. Mediation is typically done on one article at once, not 6. Please follow procedure. For User conduct issues, it's typically request for comment and then request for arbitration if the request for comment fails. For articles, it's typically request for comment and then request for mediation. And it's one at a time, not 6. Pick one of the articles and start the RfC on it. Or open a RfC on user conduct. You don't *start* with mediation. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We both know that will lead to nowhere and we will be faced with practically the same issues. That is, a type of discussion in between each other that of witch I or you will get frustrated and after many days of discusion we won't want to continue on until maybe 2 weeks from now when the issue come up again. Anyway, ] show the current issue about the CCM photo, and ], which was there from demonstrates some other requests, that we never really resolved. (the underlying issue). You, Woohookitty also added request (and removed it fairly quickly... ironically I was gone during those 2 days)... This demonstrates but a few requests that where added. I also must say that I agree with a comment someone once indicated . As a user for approximatelly 3 month and 1/2 (since september 27) I considere myself new. (That of course until I started learning the hard ball way with these guys!) I now consider myself novice. I also consider actions by these individuals as being of poor taste and sometimes lacking friendlyness. (Actually, I should more likely say conspiritorial.) Woohookitty has clearly said he doesn't like me (even though he has later on said he likes me). As for JzG, I am indeferent and this is simply because of this dispute. What can we do with all these vehicles? (I mean even ] states on his user page that "motorized bicycle" is a "Hopelessly incomplete and out of date Wiki interest section." --] 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Although Pat has tried some of the other steps per ], the reason he is here is essentially because at each stage he has not got the answer he wants. Perhaps the time has come for him to sit back and reflect on why that is. In the latest issue, that of forking Pedelec, Pat failed to convince on AfD, has thus far failed to convince on DRV and is now here - and note that it is very unusual to start one process while another is still running, as Pat is doing here. Fundamentally then, the problem is simply that ''Pat never gives up''. | |||
| :To address the question directly, I know of no suggestion that ] or ] are forks of ''anything'', so perhaps Pat can cite diffs to support that assertion. That ] was a fork has been endorsed at AfD and appears to be endorsed at DRV, too, based in part on the ''real'' point at issue which is the months-old dispute over ]. That article's Talk page and ] between them look to me a lot like forking, which was the judgment of two admins at the time, and more to the point the discussions back then are such that Pat cannot help but know that creating a separate article for electric bicycles by another name, absent that the existing section in ] grows too big, is simply not on. Pat claimed first that this was a port from the German (unnecessary since ] already links to ] and vice versa) and then a "spin-out" (which would imply at least some attempt to incorporate the content into ], no such attempt being in evidence). Only one person involved in these disputes has a vested interest in electric bicycles: Pat. | |||
| :Also, three things (notably a bicycle made by Canadian manufacturer CCM) were removed from motorized bicycle on the grounds that they were not demonstrably significant to the global development of the motorized bicycle. Pat accuses me of "deletionism" but the content already exists in the article for ]. The next thing we know there are links in the article to ], a shiny new article created by Pat and containing three things - I bet you can't guess which three! Oh, you can. And you are right: . So, I AfDd this fork (because what else would you call it?), and Pat went to the MopedArmy web forum to solicit ]s. The article was saved and new contributor {{user|K-111}} came along, one of those from MopedArmy, who made some great contributions and we agreed after a short while that (a) the three items were not significant, so out they went and (b) the timeline should be expanded to cover a widder canvas, which seems to be in abeyance since nobody is putting in the effort, being perhaps, too busy on other things, perhaps filing RfCs or some such. Next, a picture of the machine removed as irrelevant (the CCM Light Delivery Safety) appears in the motorized bicycle article. Out it comes, because even with a picture it is still of no demonstrable significance. We are short of pictures of the really significant things, though, so I go and find some and list some others we might want. What happens next? A gallery of motorized bicycles containing the pictures from that article and - guess what! - the machine removed as irrelevant. Another admin AfDs that, out it goes. | |||
| :Am I alone in seeing a pattern here? | |||
| :Now, Pat says my user page has an "incomplete and out of date" list of Wiki interests. This is true. My watchlist contains over 2,000 main space articles, some of which are being watched for vandal and spam attacks, some of which I'm researching from rare books in my possession, some are part of an ongoing arbitration concerning one person's attempt to add allegations of child rape and coverup to a prominent businessman and the global company of which he was CTO. I have said to Pat more than once that the energy he puts into irrleevancies like refactoring the talk pages of articles would be far better devoted to filling in those redlinks, which I have no doubt he could do given his knowledge. That is ''my'' fundamental problem with Pat. He has cconsumed hours of my time and his in never-ending arguments over things on which everybody but Pat apparently agrees. When he doesn't get the answer he wants, he escalates, and here we see that when that fails he escalates again. Meanwhile those redlinks are still red. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 14:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::by --] 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) : Semantics aside. I know of one suggestion that ] and ] are forks of ''something''. And that is precisely this case. So perhaps JzG can cite the diffs to support that assertion. Now to make things even more confusing, I even argued at one point the validity of the information in regards to pedelec and that I believed it was a type of "trademark." According to the ] that of witch I kept our translation on , it isn't. This is getting to the point that we continuously fail to develop this article and we scare away other editors because we fail to answer the fundamental question. According to to JzG and some other editors, pedelec is considered a type of POV fork. The fundamental question I believe is: If ] and ] are subjects of significant value to warrant their own articles, then what supports your theory that ] and ] or ] do not warrant their own separate articles. No I am not the only one that believe this. | |||
| ::*" (comment by ]) | |||
| ::*"I think merging would be a mistake. Electric bikes are a new, emerging vehicle class." (comment by ]) | |||
| ::*"" (a comment that appears to be by ] 22:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)) | |||
| ::*Clearly people have objected even when we attempted a merger: | |||
| ::** said ] and furthermore goes on to says "Please lets keep mopeds and electric bikes separate - they REALLY are different creatures." | |||
| ::But, according to everyone this is a "major" conflict of interest!!!, however: | |||
| ::*"" --] 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*another fundamental question never answered is "? --Alynna 19:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)" | |||
| ::*". --Alynna 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*"...I think the decision to merge was wrong, and appears to me to have been made mostly for non-NPOV reasons having to do not with whether there should be two articles, but with what a certain person would do, sprinkled with irrelevant rationalization like , "they have similar legal positions". I too have no competing interests. Just disappointed in what has appeared to have transpired here." --Serge 07:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Further more he indicates that "Now, it seems to me that an electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle with a separate history and completely unrelated technical issues, and, thus, warrants having its own article, period. However, any issues common to all motorized cycles should be covered in the motorized bicycle article, and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article. --Serge 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)" | |||
| ::*this show that some people have attempted to recreated the article (wasn't me that time either) | |||
| ::* --Eav 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this should be sufficient amount of evidence to demonstrate that I am not the only one that believes this. Avoiding the subject and asking me to fill out red links is precisely what has lead us to hear. Woohookitty and Katefan from the start of the creation of the article had it set in their minds to change "electric bicycle" article name and merge to their new article called "motorized bicycle." | |||
| ::Furthermore, there appears to be a language bias in this article: | |||
| ::* also demonstrates our inability to comprehend the difference between these vehicles. | |||
| ::As for the CCM picture I think we have enough on our plate right now... but I feel this is closely related to the current issue of the triumph picture (discussed on the ] page and that of witch we have been waiting for quite a while (in the RFc). --] 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*other sources --] 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::When considering the question of splitting electric bicycle from motorized bicycle (an article which emphasises the status of motorised bicycles as motor vehicles in many jurisdictions), Pat has a clear conflict of interest. See here where he notes ''Mr. Joseph wants me to be his agent. I believe the only way I can get him out of this situation is if the judge doesn't consider this a type of motor vehicle.'' The merger of the two streams was settled by consensus ''two months'' ago; I can't understand why it is suddenly so urgent. | |||
| :::When considering the question of motorcycle and moped being forks, Pat appears to be suggesting that the existence of his assertion is evidence that such a suggestion has been made, and challenging me to provide diffs to support my assertion that he should provide diffs to support ''his'' assertion that these articles are said to be forks. Since I can't believe that Pat would actually be making such an inane request, perhaps he would care to rephrase the question in terms I can more readily understand. And while he's about it perhaps he can provide the diffs which support the assertion that motorcycle and moped are forks, and if so, of what. | |||
| :::When considering the question of mediation, and efforts to resolve the "disputes", the last edits to the Talk pages prior to the nominator's linking of this discussion was: | |||
| :::* ]: December 15, 2005 | |||
| :::* ]: December 4, 2005 | |||
| :::* ]: December 19, 2005 | |||
| :::* ]: Currently at ] | |||
| :::* ]: November 6, 2005 | |||
| :::* ] is the only article where discussion has been ongoing | |||
| :::If anyone other than Pat thinks this is a problem requiring the intervention of others I have yet to come across them or their comments. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To clarify my first comment. I was using your analogy. Reverse psychology. Of course it doesn't make sense because it's base on your "flawed" reasoning (in regards to this issue). To clarify this: the analogy goes like this. If moped and motorized bicycle deserve their own article, then the differences between pedelec and motorized bicycle make it so they should also have their own article. Seeing the similarity between these articles (that of pedelec and motorized bicycle, with that of motorized bicycle and moped). If one group of articles (such as pedelec and motorized bicycle)is a POV fork, then inherently the other (moped and motorized bicycle) should also be a fork. That is obviously not the case because Moped and motorized bicycle each have their own distinct articles (even though they are practically the same machine). The same basis would also apply of motorcycle, bicycle, etc... and probably the 100'000 thousand and more articles that currently exist. I ask that you re-read the aforementioned quotes by user:Serge. This is not a personal quest. And stating that I have a vested interest has nothing to do with NPOV. (this same irrelevant argument could be used against you to... and I think it irrelevant to the discussion) Please remain on topic, for I am not the only person that has cited this fallacy in "our" logic to merge these electric bicycle to motorized bicycle. --] 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As stated above, this was settled by consensus two months ago. Why is it suddenly important enough to bring to mediation without even talking to the other editors on the article about it first? | |||
| ::::: Also, please provide diffs where anyone has stated that moped and motorcycle are forks. If you can't, I suggest that you remove them from this request. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So what you are saying is we should conserve the current format even if people object to it. I believe it is important to represent an equal vote of peoples voice here on wikipedia. Concensus for something may change after time just as evolution take place in most societies. As for the diff between motorcycle and moped. I am citting the resemblances; Those being they are all two-wheeled vehicles. As per your analogy. The reasoning is this: If, electric bicycles (a two wheeled vehicle) and motorized bicycles (a two wheeled vehicle) are POV FORK to each other. (according to "concensus" and "you"). Then Motorcycle (a two wheeled vehicle) and motorized bicycle (a two wheeled vehicle) are also POV forks (to each other). (humm... Where is the psychology student mediator when we need one!) --] 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No, Pat, what I'm saying is we should preserve the current format (assuming you mean electric bikes rolled in) because ''only one person'' objects to it. And that person is by their own admission not neutral. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''only one person''? Who's that?... Oh! you're inferring me, aren't you?<sarcastically innocent like> Your making this well to easy to debate. Really, come on, one guy. After I just showed (and cited) you all the aforementioned people that seemingly agree with this. After all, I am only here to speak for them. If they wouldn't have mentioned anything I don't think we would be here right now. I would have probably though about it 3 to 5 times and swallowed my pride. But that not the case, instead I've though about it at least 91 times (the approx. amount of days since October)). You seem to fail to recognize the fact that there are other people that agree with this and constantly claim irrelevant facts such as my alleged inherent interest. Is this because I built 2 electric bicycles. I call that discrimination my friend and if this was a job... "your honour, I was refused to be able to work because I own 2 electric bicycles.(Oh! and a company.)" If wikipedia is going to start to disallow anyone to edit because of their association to a group or clan, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for me (or anyone, when you think about it). As some wise man once said, in different context of course, "Let the first person without associations throw the first edit!" !)(b.t.w.: I sleeps in ] Boxer Shorts!! Maybe I shouldn't be aloud to edit any Canadian Content!)<sarcasm intentended here>. Now, how about staying on topic, unless you want a start an argument about association somewhere else, dunno wikipolicy? So what where we talking about. Oh, yeah! POV FORKS. recently I've even noticed the article "]." I came to a sudden realization. Why isn't "motorized bicycle" in there! In many states "motorized bicycle" is the term for Moped. Content lacking to our ] article, perhaps we should add all the states and countries that consider them motorized bicycles. (not just a bloody generalization... and theral list (and no... list doesn't have to be the kind we always delete... I mean a well developed blurb for each section)... I think what you would realize is that most jurisdictions are accepting the term electric assisted bicycles, and power-assisted bicycles. But perhaps you can explain to me again why you believe this is a POV? (asides from the fact that these vehicles are somewhat similar in appearance and also have a different histories, and even often different laws governing their use.). Another issue is: if they so similar why is it you keep removing certain pictures (which are seemingly "motorized bicycles", and some of which are "electric bicycles" from the motorized bicycle article?--] 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The issue was settled by consensus ages ago. You are the only one pressing for it to be reopened, and you have a vested interest. The total absence of support for this RfM demonstrates that more eloquently than anythign I can say, especially given your history of ignoring what I say when it's not what you want to hear. You are not so much flogging a dead horse as beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay, as far as I can tell. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 13:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here is my refutation comment: | |||
| ::::::#What does 1) the alleged fact, (even though I have clearly demonstrated futher up that many people agree with me), that you consider me the only one pressing for it, and 2) the your alleged biased opinion, (even though I have demonstrated that this is total discrimination), that I may have a "vested interest", have to do with this issue? | |||
| ::::::#I feal you must have strong links with environmentalism? You do often an excellent job at cleaning up wikipedia. You nominate many pages for deletion. You advocate that this place should be cleaner. Am I right? There is however a few things wrong with being so tidy. As Dr. Jay Lehr, science director, The Heartland Institute, 2004-11-19 has said "Environmental advocacy groups work to stifle economic and industrial progress wherever they find it to inhibit the successful advancement of peoples in developing nations, inevitably making mankind a second class citizen of planet Earth." The same I believe may be infered for wikipedia. | |||
| ::::::#The reasons I believe no one is anwering to this RfM is because 1) we are arguing pretty well and 2)we are talking and mediation should involve the parties in question (anyone poking their nose into here would probably be considered or may feel like an instigator) 3) They probably are afraid to comment (leaving to believe we should probably have a vote... and at the correct page, unlike your alleged "concensus on the subject." Maybe this page is not in the right spot.(Remember this is a Request for mediation... this is not supposed to be MEDIATION.) Rules for mediation sugest we have a SHORT SUMMARY of the issues. We have both violated this guideline. But we are communicating, isn't that what is important, right?). | |||
| ::::::#Finally I can't help but feal like you are inhibiting the production of wikipedia, and if your grounds for deleting pedelec, or having other articles (such as electric bicycle), are solely based on those few criterias (ie.: my alleged "vest interest" and the allege "past consideration"), then you should not have ask yourself why I believe this is ill-faithed and why it should be included. I can't help but feel like Azrael from Dogma, who said, "This is huge, man. Your re-entry is a thorn in a lot of sides. And they'll stop at nothing — I mean nothing — to prevent it." --] 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The existence of a separate article for electric bicycle was discussed in detail, and there was consensus to merge. Nothing has changed since then, except you've tried to fork it to pedelec, which was deleted by strong consensus. You ''admit'' you have a vested interest, someone who is taking legal action local to you with whom you are involved. And you build electric bikes. And in the end there is a limit to the number of times I am prepared to go over the same old ground. On Misplaced Pages you are supposed to go with the flow, not keep on trying different processes until you get the answer you want. There is nothing wrong with the current situation and certainly nothing which justifies mediation. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I may believe I admit to that, but I couldn't possibly comment. However if you read carefully what I wrote I admited to nothing of the sort. (This is one fault I find that happens often, that is making broad judgements) I simply re factored your comments to have a better understanding of why you have decided to bring this controversially and discriminatory angle to the discussion. I simply asked you a question. Well, a few questions. And, again, your attempt for a rebutal has failed, and you remain with an unanswered question. (for what appears to be the 3rd time.) Let me rephrased this. What does your, what I consider discriminatory, opinion towards alleged "vested interest" in the subject (or better yet toward any particular article) have to do with the or it's deletion? (another example: Jimmy really loves eating, McDonald's Ice Cream Sunday. So Jimmy write an article on Ice Cream sundae's? The fact that Jimmy really really really likes Sundays is totally irrelevant to subject matter, and I wish you could see that. Now if you have another issue to discuss, such as... perhaps the sundae should be under ] vs ], (or maybe in it's own complete article such as ] then perhaps we might be getting somewhere.) The same I believe applies to this situation of ] belonging in ] or ] and ] or having it's own article. --] 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also, the discusion of merger of electric bicycle was not discussed in detail, (in the sense of leaving many lose ends and many unanswered question) other wise we wouldn't be here. Secondly, as I have asked (but phrased differently), what is the relevance of this past discusion, for this current matter? (meaning this may be irrelevant to the discusion)--] 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The ] article has been appropriated by Wikipedian ]. The same has managed to write and rewrite over 2/3 of the page into a content filled with unreferenceable personal opinions, and is fervently protecting it against any correction through reverting, almost always to his own unchanged version. Edits have always been (well) preceded by Talk page postings, followed by a (sometimes very long) waiting periods for consensus. Seemingly the only original wikipedian contributor left to the page, ] refuses to partake in any dialogue, listen to suggestions and/or change his text himself. Yet the same is always right there to revert. Won't provide factual references, even when reverting the work of an author who does. Am in the midst of a two-day revert war but call it off for mediation. Have tried ] and ] and have also asked personally the page's original contribotors and other users to help. To no avail. So thank you if you can. ] 19:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (formerly ]). | |||
| : PS: OnWiki (public) is fine. ] 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ] is promoting a pan-Turkish POV with an article that is actually quite fair and equitable towards the Turks of Turkey. Her picture inclusion depicts non-Turks as Turks just to promote some sort of inclusion of all famous figures ever affiliated with Turkey as ethnic Turks. Discussed this on the Discussion page to no avail. Thanks. ] 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ] has asked me to arrange mediation for our dispute over José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and sub-pages eg ]. It is very bitter between us, there are sockpuppet allegations that could do with a developer looking at them, and things have been tense for months (it began in the middle of last year) but there is willingness for mediation, ] 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I've been involved in a dispute with ] over this article. What's happened is this: Back in November I came across the ] article using ''random article'', and it was in my opinion a thinly-veiled attack page written by FourthAge (see first version of page). I whacked a <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> tag on it, and FourthAge took it off. I put it back, and was subjected to a barrage of abuse on my talk page that I tried to deal with sensibly. | |||
| Nothing happened for a few days and I kind of forgot about the article, and only remembered to follow up a few days ago. POV tag was gone again and the abusive bullshit posted on the talk page, all aimed at me, needs to be read to be believed. Me be angry. I'd really appreciate some cool heads to mediate this one. Thanks. ] 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''(edit)''' Now he's accusing me of actually ''being'' ], which is preposterous. ] 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *For what it's worth, ] has been consistantly inserting POV into both the Vander Plaats article and the Nussle article, as well as making unsigned comments on talk pages referring to Nussle's wife as a whore and making absurd/paranoid accusations of other sorts. See ] for an example. - ] 05:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Mediation is required over a conflict in wording in the article as to whether "many" or "most" hockey authorities support Gretzky as the greatest hockey player of all time. ] has reverted this edit eleven times in five days, and has been cited for 3RR violation, while myself, ], ] among others back the current consensus. A similar dispute is taking place over in ]. This has been RfCed with no result. ] 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Conservative RV Wars=== | |||
| <strike>] claims he is "fighting on two fronts" to stop two articles from allowing factual references to anti-semitism, or fascism. He believes they are anti-conservative attempts at "guilt by association". He calls me anti-Christian, among other things, and behaves in a rather hostile manner while revert warring 24/7. Also claims I am arrogantly acting beyond my bounds when opposing his changes (I am not an American nor an american-style conservative.) Should articles such as those just be left to editors who support the overall ideas? I don't know what to do. The two articles are: ] (as in the U.S. fox news theme) and ].--] 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :UPDATE: I've given up here, help is really needed.06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| *I am available to mediate the case. I will leave a note for both of you, and if both parties are interested, mediation can commence. --] 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Shoot. You've left wikipedia, according to your talk page. Sigh. I wish I had read this earlier. --] 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Vlaams Belang=== | |||
| Several of us have been trying to make edits to the article regarding the article on the Vlaams Belang, a Flemish political party viewed by many as extreme-right (though not by its leaders). Essentially, those edits intended to bring more perspective and nuances to the article as currently written. Indeed, the current version of the article gives much more space to opinions and links that downplay the fact that this party could be of extreme right. Facts and links volunteered by myself and others and that would have brought an alternative perspective have been systematically deleted or altered so as to contradict their original meaning by ], who is obviously a sympathizer of that party. | |||
| There is already a poster on that article mentioning that it may not reflect NPOV policy. I would however appreciate a mediation that would lead to a more balanced presentation of that party. | |||
| Meanwhile, until a consensus can be found, I would like to request this article to be deleted given its imbalance. ] 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Although a conservative myself, I am no member of that Belgian/Flemish party. Moreover, there has NEVER been a moment that I was not prepared to discuss anything. I also try to stay polite in the discussion. If there is something POV, then please specify. Why this article attracks so much opponents, I don’t know. ] – December 27, 2005. | |||
| ===Stub issue=== | |||
| Judging by this page the MedCom is presently inactive. Still, if any MedCommers read this, please take a look at ], which is a list of users apparently disgruntled with SFD who have resorted to boycotting the process and encouraging others to do the same. While they have good reasons for being gruntled, this is hardly a way of solving anything, so I would appreciate some kind of mediation in the dispute. ]]] 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===The ] in ] Province of ]=== | |||
| Request mediation for article ]. ] keeps putting unverified (+ protected) tagg for no acceptable reason regarding the Kurds in Northern part of the province, despite of numerous credible sources. Thank you. | |||
| <span style="border: 2px solid #FF1111; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#00aa00">]</font>] ] </b></span> 13:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Confirm request. The above party (Diyako) resorts to name calling and ad hominems and refuses to back down even though his position is outnumbered by other editors there, and despite lack of providing sufficient evidence.--] 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have cited enough sources but this party (Zereshk) ignores them and only accepts Tutk, Turk, Turk, and ignore Kurds!!! | |||
| <span style="border: 2px solid #FF1111; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#00aa00">]</font>] ] </b></span> 03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Baker's supporters, particularly ] are attacking the page to either 1) delete or belittle arguments negative to Baker's claims of innocence 2) personalise the case against Mark Devlin, making it appear he is the only critic of the case 3) Belittling the media that criticism of Baker appeared in 4) removing factual data, such as a comparison of the arrest rates in the US and Japan. I believe that the article is reasonable as it stands by my last edit and would like like to request your help in mediating to prevent the page becoming an extension of Baker's support page. Thank you. | |||
| ] 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Heavy revert warring going on between several parties, and gratuitous incivility all around. Users are now requesting censure of an admin who blocked them for revert warring. As an uninvolved party I believe this issue can only really be resolved through mediation. ]]] 23:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This dispute is about infoboxes used in Korea-related articles, whether they should include the nearly-obsolete ] (chinese characters historically used in korea), in addition to the korean script ] and two romanizations. Having Hanja in the default infobox for modern Korean topics, where most Koreans don't use or even know the Hanja, discourages the use of the infobox, makes it harder to complete, and does not reflect actual local usage. A small group of Chinese-fluent wikipedians, however, are insisting on keeping Hanja, even where Koreans themselves don't use it. I propose to use non-Hanja infoboxes where Hanja comprises less than 1% of the mention of the topic in Korean language google results. Nobody objects to Hanja in the article body for historical, etymological, or disambiguation discussion. We're only talking about whether default infoboxes should include Hanja. We have tried a poll, which was worthless with Endroit's overbroad wording, and RfC, with very limited interest. ] 17:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Since the beginning of January there is an edit war for the "Fethullah Gulen" article. The article is about the Turkish Islamic/political leader Fethullah Gulen. The disaggrement in the article is a reflection of different views people have of him. One side to the edit war claims the text before the edit war was insulting to Gulen and those who sympathize with him, the other side, which includes me, claims the preedit war text contained the divergent views over Gulen and objectivity requires it stays that way. At the moment there is a long discussion in the relevant discussion page, but at points, due to the inefficient nature of the process, the discussion is repetitive and sometimes gets personal. Both sides believe mediation is the only way to go forward. I personally believe a mediator with the following qualifiations would greatly enhance the chances for success | |||
| :1) A mediator knowledgable about Turkish politics,Middle Eastern politics, secularism or Islamic movements | |||
| :2) A mediator who knows Turkish language since almost all the existing works on the subject is in Turkish. An alternative is to cooperate with the TUrkish moderators, since the same discussion is also going on in the Turkish version.] 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --- | |||
| As a side to this dispute I would like to add a coment here: | |||
| Yes, we both agree that meditation is the only way we can proceed in discussing the article. The statements by Mr. Barouqque fair enough above (except some statemnts like 'Gulen is a political leader'. He has similar misstatements in the article itself which is a reason for this dispute. The truth is he is an Islamic scholar). However, I would like to point out a concern of mine related to the qualifications of mediator: | |||
| It would be good that the mediator know about Turkish, Turkish Culture and so on. But I wouldn't agree on having a mediator among the Turkish moderators. We are having the same problem in Turkish Misplaced Pages and the problem cannot be resolved there as well. I should clearly add that some of the moderators (at least one of them permanently) there are acting with a great deal of harmony with Mr. Barouqque, and if one of these moderators assigned as a moderator, the process of meditation simply wouldn't work. | |||
| So, although knowing Turkish and Turkish Culture, etc. is a plus, the moderator should definitely be choosen carefully so that the moderator himeslf/herself is not bias. For that reason, I would prefer a moderator knowledgable about the issue or similar issues but not among the Turkish Wikipedi moderators. If there is no other way than choosing a moderator from Turkish Wiki moderators (I am not very sure about how the system is working here) the name of the moderator should be determined by the approval of both parties involved. | |||
| The bottom line is: The neutrality and objectivity of the moderator is the most important factor. The rest has secondary importance. | |||
| Thanks. ] 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| Jason was quite irritated when a number of articles he contriubuted to were nominated for deletion, mostly for non-notability. He sent emails to at least two members who identified as Christian on their user pages (I was one) to support his articles, and has since then made a number of AfDs in questionable faith. | |||
| I think it would benefit if the moderator who specifically handles this case identifies as Christian. | |||
| Contact me for any further assistance, or if I can give any further information. | |||
| --] 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is an active RfC at ]. The above incident is only a part of the problem. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Recently I placed a gaming holiday (actually an observance) on January 25. This "observance" is proven to exist and has been deleted repeatedly by Calton. He has been proven wrong about it's status as an "observance". Originally I had claimed it as a holiday, but through appropriate deffinition search I found it to be an observance, and proved it to be so to Calton. I have proof through a transcript of our messages to one another. I accepted that it was not a "holiday" but was an "observance" and therefore should be in the "holidays and observances" subsection in the January 25th topic. I placed an updated entry for it in January 25. A few hours later it was once more deleted and I began my trek through the process on wikipedia for mediation. I am requesting public wikipedia mediation so that all my see. ] <small>] • ]</small> 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Reject.''' Please try discussing this on ] first. —]] 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Can someone please have a look at this article/stub. A user named Jacrosse has, for a couple months now, been repeatedly adding a paragraph on rumors about gay toga party orgies held by Leo Strauss and then Allan Bloom at Cornell. At least four users have objected to the paragraph and tried to reason with Jacrosse on the Toga Party Talk Page about why it should not be included. We have gotten nowhere and are now looking for some outside assistance with this matter. Thanks so much. ] 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll take it. ]] ''']''' ] 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| According to the editing procedure on ], all edits must be cited with Lodge info or other verifiable sources. Recently, Baphin added individuals from Turkey back to the list. They were removed because they were unverifiable at the time . Baphin added them back in, and did not add any citations . I rved per procedure and notified him on his user page . He responded by saying all GLs maintain list of famous Masons in other jurisdictions (they do not), and that it was easily verfiable (it was not, as I do not read Turkish). Rather than find citations, he instead tried to start an argument. He also re-added the section and still did not add citations. I reverted his edits and some other uncites by other users engaging in repetitive minor edits . I would prefer that this not escalate into revert warring - the policies on the List are clear, Baphin did not read them, and although I gave him clear and polite instruction on how to resolve the issue, he ignored it and tried to start a poorly done argument. Therefore, I would like the issue mediated as a first resort, with RFAr to follow if unsuccessful. ] 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Current Cases== | |||
| === Nixer_and_E_Pluribus_Anthony === | |||
| *] | |||
| === phpBB entry dispute === | |||
| There seems to be a core of two or three people who seem to have connections to the ] Group who are a) insisting on reverting any inclusion of discussion of well known technical issues with phpBB ("Criticisms"), and b) any links to well known, well established and usfull "unofficial" resources (books, web sites, whatever). The only allowable content and links are content from and links to the "official" phpBB site. The result is that the article is little more than a platform for advertisement of the phpBB Group. In addition, this type of restriction prevents value to readers from being added to the article. The controversy is pretty well hashed out in the articles discussion. | |||
| :Ill take it. -]|] 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Archives == | |||
| {| width="70%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| | '''RFM Archives''' (current in bold) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ] (Inactive) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | | |||
| ] | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: