Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eggster (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 11 February 2006 (→New Requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header

Please list new requests at the top of the section 'New Requests'. Use the format described below. A member of the Mediation Committee will be assigned to take care of your case.

New Requests

New requests should be listed at the top of this section, right below this message. Requests made after 14:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC) should use the {{RFMR}} template. The edit view of the template includes instructions for completing it. Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide also provides an explaination for how to file a request. All parties to the mediation must indicate agreement to mediate by signing the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section; any request that has not been signed by all parties within 14 days will be rejected. A description of common reasons for rejecting requests is available at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection.

Users "Atari2600tim", "Ehheh" and "Jlambert" are using multiple sockpuppets to refute changes to Online Creation article

This is really lame. Atari2600tim has created two sock puppets, and while breaking rules, is citing rules and using these sock puppets to generate a "ban" against User:Eggster and his IP for the purpose of defacing Online Creation.

Users Ambi and Virtual Steve – Issue Redlink Reduction

I am seeking mediation assistance with regards a dispute concerning my attempt to tidy the wiki by removal of redlinks as per What not to link and Administrator Ambi’s dogmatic refusal to allow any adjustments along these lines. I have attempted to discuss this matter with her – and that discussion has gotten heated on both sides (see combined talk pages). In particular I am concerned by long term redlinks and on that point I am more than happy to concede that some of my removals may be too early for all wikipedians but I do not concede that redlinks should be allowed to stand ad infinitum. For a single example (although the dispute is not about this page per se) this article St. Nicholas' Collegiate Church which has not been added to or adjusted since April 5, 2005 is in Ambi’s view (as posted on her user page) to be quite good. I would not be allowed to remove the redlinks on that page that have been there for almost a year and which make the article look clumsy and feel unprofessional. If I did I would be threatened that my alterations are close to vandalism and then would be threatened with blocking if such changes continue. Indeed Ambi has even gone so far as to revert redlinks that I personally created in my own major articles. The continuum of our conflict is probably that I consider that I am following both the consensus view/s and the encyclopedic view that redlinks are generally clumsy and should be discouraged – and if not discouraged totally able to be removed when a reasonable amount of time has passed. I also have a concern with Ambi’s method of administrator support but that may be her way of doing things and beyond mediation. Whilst it may be impossible to clear up this matter perfectly there must be a way to gain middle ground on this and not be threatened on every edit. Please can you help? VirtualSteve 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To be accepted by committee, RE: Daredevil

Requesting OnWiki (public) between User:Tenebrae and User:GodzillaWax RE: Daredevil. There have been several disagreements between us two parties. Tenebrae asked for, and consent from GodzillaWax was given, for mediation. The current dispute stems from this paragraph below.

Nocenti and Romita Jr.

A round-robin of creators contributed in the year that followed Born Again: writers Mark Gruenwald, Danny Fingeroth, Steve Englehart (under the pseudonym "John Harkness"), and Ann Nocenti, and pencilers Steve Ditko, Barry Windsor-Smith, Louis Williams, Sal Buscema, Todd McFarlane, Keith Pollard, and Chuck Patton. Longshot co-creator Nocenti, who'd written #236, became the regular writer for a long, stable, four-and-a-quarter year run of all but two issues from #238-291 (Jan. 1987 - April 1991). John Romita Jr. joined as penciler from #270-289 (Sept. 1989 - Feb. 1991), and was generally inked by Al Williamson. The well-received and award-winning team specifically addressed societal issues, with Murdock, now running a non-profit urban legal center, confronting sexism, racism and nuclear proliferation while fighting supervillains. Nocenti's run is also of note for introducing the popular antagonist Typhoid Mary, a supporting character from #254-263.

GodzillaWax and I have gone back and forth over whether something can be called "well-received" or a "stable run" when there was a 4 1/4-year run after the previous year's round-robin; when artist John Romita Jr. became a comics star with the series; and when inker Al Williamson won awards for the series three years running. I noted in the Talk page that "well-received" does not necessarily mean critically acclaimed, citing McDonald's burgers and Stephen King novels; and I cited Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" ("1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating"), which he does not accept.

I also ask mediation over GodzillaWax's frequent use of insults. I'm sure he feels put-upon by me as well, though I would note that other editors on the History page and elsewhere have been insulted by him with phrases like, "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?" Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble as an Arbitration/Mediation volunteer. — Tenebrae 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to make my piece known-> Tenebrae has left out a major part of our disagreement. He has tried to say "The award winning team..." with respect to comic book writer Ann Nocenti, penciller John Romita JR and inker Al Williamson. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that this is factually incorrect, as only Williamson won an award for his inking. An example I made on the Daredevil Talk page is that you cannot say the Los Angeles Lakers are an award-winning team if they had a miserable season and Kobe Bryant won the league MVP (relating this to sports terminology since it seems to go across better). He has taken offense to my dislike of Nocenti's writing (though I need to point out this distaste has never been expressed on the article itself - only in discussion of changes) and has tried, it seems, to counter this by suggesting she won an award on the title, which is absolutely not true. I have no problem with him pointing out that Al Williamson won an award, but I find it disingenuous to suggest Nocenti won an award by association of saying "the award winning team."

As far as "well-regarded" - for one, this is a POV statement. How can one prove something was well-regarded? It implies a fan or market reaction, which is subjective when not provided with a source. I don't see how he reasons that "well-received" says nothing of if something is regarded as "good". I suggested he consider the close relationship between the work 'well' and the word 'good'.

Likewise I have argued that saying something is 'stable' is additionally POV, though this, as I have pointed out in discussion, I have less of a problem with. 'Stable' is still a relative term, though I can understand the need not to go overboard on eliminating every word with relative connotations. In fact, when Tenebrae first came onto the page, I pleaded to him to not go overboard himself in removing from the page all language that was strictly not factual (by which I mean relative terms, et al). Tenebrae was steadfast that an encyclopedia must not contain anything that cannot be proven without a source, and I relented. It puzzles me now though that he argues to the contrary of his original opinion.

My last point is that I do not appreciate that Tenebrae constantly attacks me through passive aggressive means. Moreover, a problem I had with him was that he has on multiple occasions said he was playing the conciliatory role on the Daredevil page only to talk poorly of me on other pages (without notifying me I might add). I expressed to him on his talk page that this kind of behavior of running around behind someone's back calling them names is unacceptable. As far as "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?", this is something I said quite a long time ago, tongue-in-cheek, when someone continually tried to remove any and all references to the fact that there was implied sexual intercourse in 'Daredevil'. It should be noted that this sentence had nothing to do with Tenebrae, was said weeks before he ever started making changes on the DD page, was said in jest, and was never complained about by the other party. Sure it was a bit out of line, but like I said, the other party had no issue with it, presumably because they understood it was in jest. But yet Tenebrae goes mining through edit changes months old in attempt to somehow prove that I am some sort of monster. I began serious revision of the Daredevil entry weeks back because the page was in very bad shape. In fact, the majority of everything that is on that page now is something I wrote.

Clearly I care very much about the character. Tenebrae rubbed me wrong by coming on to the page and calling me a fanboy and drastically altering the page. Naturally, this is the essence of Misplaced Pages - open collaboration - but he continually removed factual entries (on more than three occasions, and I would be happy to provide examples) with no regard to whether they were true or not. He then took offense that I took offense and like I said called me a fanboy and said negative things about me on other pages. Frankly I am tired of him always looking for confrontation. I have tried hard lately to compromise (you'll notice by looking at the edit history that I am continually working with his changes and reinserting facts that he has removed capriciously) and work with him. But this latest row has arisen because he has taken issue with my trying to remove POV statements of his. He even went so far as to ask me not to make changes to the page anymore, which is surely not within his right.

Overall I am exhausted of this. I very much appreciate any of your help in resolving this. GodzillaWax 16:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages

Appleby has repeatedly tried to edit East Sea (disambiguation) against concensus, and just ended up breaking the 3RR for the THIRD time now (and is now serving a 48-hour block). It began when these edits were done by Appleby on Dec. 18, 2005 without any discussion. On Jan. 28, 2006, Nlu realized some of these were done without concensus and then Nlu and myself (Endroit) started to revert some of these. Then an Edit War broke out, resulting in Appleby being blocked numerous times. The pages involved are East Sea (capital), East sea (small), East Sea (disambiguation), and Sea of Japan. Some discussion already took place in Talk:Sea of Japan#east sea disambiguation (and below) regarding whether East Sea (and East sea) should redirect to Sea of Japan or East Sea (disambiguation). A later Edit War shifted to arguments about the wording of the text in East Sea (disambiguation), where the Edit War continued without the discussion page being hardly used. And there are more people involved now. I have requested admin Katefan0 to lock the East Sea (disambiguation) page while we pursue mediation and/or arbitration. I am requesting a mediator to clarify the position of each person involved, to facilitate any further discussion/mediation/arbitration.--Endroit 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Dispute regarding the relevance of the article. Factual accuracy and neutrality tag is placed on the article while no specific concerns abut the content were presented. Research was presented stating the relevance of the article and common use of the term in media and academia. Dispute between User:Dado User:Zvonko and User:Asim Led. For more see talk.--Dado 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. Nikola 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Open requests

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Current

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages mediation