| Revision as of 14:03, 19 October 2004 editAlexR (talk | contribs)3,829 editsm Ops! forgott closing ===← 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 ] | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| :''Part of ]'' | |||
| '''Please read the information in the ], before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in ]. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at ].''' | |||
| ==For more information== | |||
| You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: ] (what is mediation) | |||
| ==Requests for mediation== | |||
| It is always preferable for ''both'' parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask. | |||
| It's important that this page should not become a second version of ]. | |||
| '''''Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the ], and will be read in full.''''' | |||
| See ] for past requests. | |||
| '''Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===] and ], ]=== | |||
| Request mediation with VeryVerily regarding his reversion practice on various articles including ] and ]. ] 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| '''''Moved to ] due (only) to the size of this section.''''' | |||
| ===Users Ato and RaffiKojian regarding History of Turkey article=== | |||
| ] and I (]) are engaged in a revert war (now ceased thanks to ]'s protection of the page, per my request) in ] article. Raffi wants to make a reference to ] article in this article, and formulates it in a way that disregards the dispute surrounding this issue. I am opposing this on two grounds: 1) At this level of detail in the article this reference makes it imbalanced. We neglect a lot of important parts of prerepublic history of Turkey, this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other events 2) The way Raffi wants it to be included: "''Ottoman Empire carried out Armenian Genocide''", which incidentally is the way it is included in the protected article, does not mention the context in which the referred events happened and disregards the majority of Turkish population's view, namely that these events do not deserve to be called genocide. I would like to point out that this is not the same as denying the deaths, or the order of deportation etc. so saying something like "Turkey denies it happened" gives quite a wrong impression, a detailed explanation is necessary if a reference will be made. I have taken a break from editing the article and asked for third party opinion, in particular from ]. He responded but Raffi and I still failed to come to an agreement. I proposed a comprimise: leaving the article in a form which makes both of us unhappy (I object to the reference at this level of detail, Raffi objects to the form of the reference) and work on a draft (see: ]), which Raffi has so far ignored. I asked Raffi to ask for mediation together, but he did not respond (even though he was swiftly reverting my changes), so I am asking for mediation by myself. If anybody wants to discuss this issue, I would be happy to provide more details. Even if you are not a mediator or do not want to mediate but has things to say, please feel free to leave messages on my talk page, e.g., for pointing out what could have I done differently and why. ]] 21:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't notice Ato's message to me about mediation on the 12th. No matter, I agree on the request for mediation. I feel like my whole exchange with Ato has been a waste, despite my attempts for discussion and compromise. I went along with his request not to include it in the ] article at all. I went along with his request for user Jerzy to give his thoughts on whether it belonged on the History of Turkey page at all (Jerzy thought definitely so). I replied to why the wording he was reverting to was completely false and he ignored my explanations, comments on that. So I feel like all I can agree with on this is that we need a third party to step in here. His unilateral decision to create a new draft is fine, but I am just watching it to see how it develops. I certainly have the feeling anything I wrote on there would be removed, just like before. I would be happy to have Jerzy write the Armenian Genocide reference. To say that he was did not like the one small sentence genocide reference because it was so prominent in a short article seems ridiculous to me. First it is so brief, primarily serving as a link. Second it is natural for an article to develop in one place then another. Third, I think in general when he says things like "this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other", it just shows his attitude that the genocide was not a big deal. Not important enough to warrant space. Then he goes on after saying it takes up too much space, that there should be more background/explanation. His denial that it was genocide is even one thing, but his attempt to characterize this as "Armenian view vs. Turkish" even is not a fair one. Virtually serious scholars not getting funding from the Turkish government - including a number of Turkish scholars agree it was genocide. It is a truth vs. the Turkish Government battle, and the massive efforts of Turkey to prevent discussion and censor the suject in Turkey that have led to this. Anyway - I feel like there is no way I can convince Ato with facts when trying to find proper wording, so let me know what is needed from me on mediation. --] 03:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| === Users ] and ] === | |||
| User ], in relation to the ] project, has claimed that I "don't oppose systemic bias, you're just looking for a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism." (from ]). As well as being blatantly untrue, it belittles all the effort I, and others, have put into the project. Jayjg has also claimed that the project grew out of "attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks." (from ]). He has provided no evidence for either assertion, even after I requested this '''EIGHT''' times. Instead, he ignores the question, or cites irrelevant information. I request a full apology. The rules broken include ], ], and ]. My preferred mediator is ] --- ] 11:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm rather bemused by this request. ] has been a consistent and persistent violater of these rules (and other Misplaced Pages norms) since his first days here on Misplaced Pages, primarily with me, but with many other editors as well. In fact, his behaviour earned him a one-week ban within three weeks or so of joining Misplaced Pages, and it has seen little improvement since; thus it is rather startling that '''he''' would request mediation in an area in which his behaviour has been so deficient. Nevertheless I welcome mediation with ], as I have been hoping to find some way short of arbitration of getting him to respect Misplaced Pages norms, which he has heretofore violated with seeming relish and abandon. As a simple example, he recently created a highly visible, deep red "Rogue admin" list on the top of his user page, and included me and two other admins on that list, one of whom had only become an admin hours before, and had not even had a chance to exercise his admin powers. Requests from other editors to remove the list were to no avail, though ] did remove it a day or so after requesting mediation with me. Regarding mediators, while I like ], whose good-will and desire to defuse conflict is second to none, I'm a little concerned that his conciliatory approach might not take ]'s violations seriously enough. I don't know much about ], ]'s initial choice, but I have no objection to her as a mediator, if she is willing to take on this role. ] 02:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note refusal to deal with the issues raised in my request. - ] 04:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Um, I'm fairly sure any mediation will deal with your issues, don't you think? Otherwise what would be the point of asking for mediation? ] 08:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #I don't do mediation on the ] page. If you '''both''' choose me as Mediator, I would rather use private e-mail. | |||
| #All my mediations have succeeded in the past, and I expect that this will, too. How about it? ] ] 13:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I'm ready. - ] 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===''']''' and ''']''' at ''']'''=== | |||
| I would like to ask for formal mediation between myself (OSO) and User:Zen-master regarding this topic. I am personally happy for anyone to come along and help, though it would be really good if someone with knowledge of the subject can step in. ] is an equation that is used to determine the amount of time before oil levels peak. It is currently a controversial subject because of high oil prices and a perception among many people that oil is beginning to run out. | |||
| My contribution to the subject is in regards to the ], which is a region of Alberta, Canada, where approximately one-third of the world's petroleum supplies exist. For many years oil companies have been talking about exploiting this resource as a way of producing more oil for world consumption. If Hubbert's peak if correct and we are beginning to run out of oil, then the oil in the tar sands should become viable for use. | |||
| ], however, removed my editing of the article and has steadfastly refused to include the information in the article. He does not believe my assertion that the tar sands actually have an impact of the article. I have given him ample external links as a way of proving my argument but he appears to have ignored them. Go to ] for all the sordid details. | |||
| The problem has been inflamed somewhat by a mistake I made early in the piece when I decided that Zen-master was actually a friend of mine who is mad about Hubbert's peak and who was recently introduced to Misplaced Pages by myself. Therefore some of my early remarks were, how shall I say? Intemperate. When I rang my friend and found out that it wasn't him I made an apology in the discussion. | |||
| I believe that I have (apart from the aforementioned intemperance) treated Zen-master with respect and attempted to work together to solve the problem. This has not worked as the talk page will show. The way Zen-master works appears similar to trolling. | |||
| Zen-master also logs on as 207.172.83.26 | |||
| ] 07:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe OSO has mischaracterized the Hubbert Peak/Peak Oil controversy a number of different ways and his facts need checking. I welcome all third parties. | |||
| :# Oil reserves in Athabasca are best considered an oil deposit, i.e. a non-proven oil reserve. There is no consensus even among the oil industry that extracting a significant percentage of the world's oil from tar sands is technically feasable, especially after you factor in the order of magnitude greater environmental impact. Athabasca currently produces .1463% of the world's oil, I consider this non-noteworthy. | |||
| :# The controversy began with his edit -- is it wikipedia policy to begin the discussion of a controversial topic before or after controversial content is posted to an article? | |||
| :# OSO also fails to mention the fact that he agreed to my removal of his edit as the starting point for discussion. | |||
| :# The only person that has been "steadfast" is OSO in his belief that it should be his way or else. I've proposed various ways of reformatting the page. | |||
| :# A one sentence mention of Athabasca in a different section on the Hubbert Peak page that touches on both the promising potential of extracting a significant portion of the huge tar sands field, and, the skeptical nature of that happening given the current limited rate of production should be a fair compromise. A mention larger than that would have to mention the larger enrvironmental impact of tar sands oil production I believe, making it beyond the point of being relevant or appropriate on the Hubbert Peak page. That is why a link to the Athabasca page from Hubbert Peak may make the most sense regardless. | |||
| :# OSO seems to believe additional oil from Athabasca nullifies the implications or effects of peak oil theory, when in reality it would only delay it. There can be no disagreement that there is ultimately a finite oil reserve on planet earth. Absent a suitable replacement the effects of oil depletion on society would be similiar were depletion to happen now or in 10 years or after all the oil in Athabasca is gone. | |||
| :# He morphed a disagreement about the when of peak oil into a disagreement on the implications, there can be no disagreement on the implications. '''The section that describes the "here is what happens if we were to run out of oil" should not include info on potential non-conventional sources of oil that might delay running out of oil (there is already a section for that on the page).''' | |||
| :# From the beginning OSO has attempted to discredit my argument not by refuting the points of my argument but by claiming I am a ''newbie'' or now a ''troll''. This is considered respectful by OSO? | |||
| :# The one (and currently only) third party poster on the Hubbert Peak talk page commented that OSO's initial controversial edit of the Hubbert Peak page did sound like oil company PR. | |||
| ::] 12:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| One thing that Zen and I would agree upon, people, is that we need someone quick. We may even have move straight to abritration. ] 12:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :As a mostly neutral third party, I think this request for mediation is premature. The dispute is still being discussed by the two parties and other prerequisite dispute resolution has not yet taken place. I highly recommend delaying mediation and arbitration until these other avenues have been exhausted. I offered to act as a third party, to which both parties agreed, but One Salient Oversight continued to post a mediation request regardless. | |||
| :Regarding OSO's statement, "we need someone quick," he will likely find that mediation and arbitration are usually painfully slow processes; all the more reason to settle the dispute without their aid and using them only as a last resort. ] 19:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===''']''' and ''']'''=== | |||
| Chuck F also edits from: | |||
| *(] | ] | ]) | |||
| *(] | ] | ]) | |||
| *(] | ] | ]) | |||
| Chuck has been removing quite a bit of information from libertarian-related articles. He was the subject of an RFC ] but continues to participate in revert wars. A new problem has also come along: starting with ], a string of new users have come along for the sole purpose of fighting with Chuck. Chuck agreed to mediation but requested that these users not participate in mediation, and I agree: They are trolls and they should not be a part of this. They deserve to be disciplined, but separately from this dispute. If the mediators feel they should be included, please communicate this to Chuck. | |||
| I'd like to help Chuck agree to behave on articles such as ], ], ], and ]. I would like him to explain why he feels large-scale deletions are the proper response to perceived POV issues. Chuck's M.O. is to delete whole sections, and then gradually reduce the scope of his deletions until they are accepted through attrition. He started by deleting entire parts of ] and ], then through a tedious process, agreed to include most of what he originally deleted. For the purpose of this mediation, I'd like to use the e-mail address rhobite at gmail dot com. ] 19:48, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :The only info I've removed from Libertarian-related articles is info added in by ] and his other accounts(he seems to create a new account per day, to make it seem like there is concensus against my edits in the history page and to give himself no traceable history(besides very small edits he does to make it not look like another of his accounts). | |||
| :I would also like to add that ] has about 15 more singatures then mine, and he's been causing a large amount more of problems then me. His accounts are: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] and ] (all of these have been created withen the past week). | |||
| ::The first point to decide is who should be your mediator. There is a list of mediators at ]. Do either of you have any preferences? Thanks -- ] ] 20:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Mostly correct Chuck, but to my knowledge you made this questionable edit before any Reithy involvement: . And of course, you did abuse ] and several corporate articles before Reithy showed up. I agree about the sockpuppets and ideally I would like these users disciplined. But excepting Reithy, most of their content edits are valid, and I would have made them myself. I have no problem with any of the listed mediators. ] 20:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm fine with any of the moderators... Libertarniasm - that was in agreement with every other editor on the page, about a returning vandal.. and the edit that you mention, | |||
| ::::I explained it on the talk page, quoting myself: The whole Entire notion of it being a private entity is what the lawsuit(and the order to show cause) was about... that the Cpd is using public funds and public areas for private purposes. CPD argues that they are a non-for-profit non-partisan donations to them are tax-deductabile. The Libertarian party is challanging that view and calling them a private entity for partisin purposes using tax-payer funds. Calling them a private misleads you to belive that they weren't using public funds and public spaces for thier acitvities" | |||
| :::::I am willing to mediate if that is acceptable to you both. If it is, the next decision is the format - whether we discuss issues on a page on Misplaced Pages, on the mediation bulletin boards, via email or in some other way. I firmly believe that mediation is best carried out in private, and this would be a condition of my mediating for you. This would probably mean email or the bulletin board (the board can be set up to contain a private area). So perhaps you could both let me know whether you agree to me as mediator and, if so, what format you prefer. -- ] ] 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for volunteering. E-mail or the board would be fine with me. IRC may be expeditious, I don't know if that's allowed. ] 23:16, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::board e-mail irc or just about anything els is fine with me, whatever you want Sannse since your the mediatator person. ] 12:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ] regarding ] === | |||
| Mr. Williamson has, since the 2nd of October, tried first anonymously to remove Joan of Arc completely from the article (where she was listed as an example of cross-dressing), he only commented on this edits after I had the article locked so he had to. Ever since the article has been unlocked, and after he realised that she would not be removed from the article, he has constantly tried to push his POV that Joan cross-dressed out of pure necessity, not because of any reasons he describes as "deviant". (The latter not being exactly neutral, either). The article previously stated explicitly that no reason ''could'' be given for historical persons (see the article and the debate for details). Already much of the old content on Joan has been replaced by him with content that support his POV, but still he strives to remove any last remnant of reason. I tried for two weeks now to make him see what the debate, from my side, was about, and I have gotten pretty insulting answers that were besides the point, and constant misrepresentation of my statements, at one time he even completely misrepresented a completely unrelated debate I had participated in (on ], then a VfD debate). | |||
| I had been happy if, instead of just pushing his POV, Mr. Williamson had actually tried to contribute something ''without'' pushing his POV so much. Also, others have weighted in, trying to bring him there, too. However, he only sees what he wants to seen, and he certainly does not want to see anything critical of him and his POV. Now that he starts accusing me of "vandalism", because I reverted his POV removal of one sentence twice, I have given up to believe that any meaningfull debate between us can take place, an RfC did not help, either, and I therefore request mediation. -- ] 11:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Please add new requests immediately above this line. --> | |||
| ==Archived and ongoing cases== | |||
| *] and ], ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Matter resolved. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation underway with ]. See ] for the request. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **] as Herschelkrustofsky no longer accepting mediation, and the case is already at arbitration. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **] as AndyL is away until September 15. | |||
| *] and ], ], ] + others. | |||
| **Simonides has retracted his request for mediation. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Matter resolved. Moved discussion to subpage ] - ]] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Archived to to allow for the request at ] to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See ] for details. -- ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 16:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined, see ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined, see ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation inactive. ] has not edited Misplaced Pages since 14 Jun 2004. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] (and/or ] | |||
| **Mediation inactive. See ] for details. | |||
| *] (and others) and ] | |||
| **Mediation successful. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation inactive. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Ongoing discussion occuring at ] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **The disputants are working things out on their own. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Archived as this is now being considered at ] after the mediation had become inactive. See ] and ] for details. | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| **Mediation declined. See ] for details. | |||
| *"]" and ] | |||
| **Archived to to allow for the request at ] to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See ] for details. | |||
| *Neutrality and libel about ] | |||
| **Mediation successful. ] for details. | |||
| *Users ] and ] | |||
| **Archived as this is now being considered at ]. See ] for details. | |||
| *Users ], ], and ] | |||
| **Archived as this is now being considered at ]. See ] for details. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] for info | |||
| * for discussions about mediation on Misplaced Pages | |||
| * | |||
| *] | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: