User:Animated Cascade/sbox

Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation
For archive of some Mediation Cabal cases that have been closed, see Closed Case Archives: Closed Cases Archive 1

Distributed Concurrent Versions System

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request

Distributed Concurrent Versions System
 * Where is the issue taking place?

User:Just zis Guy, you know? User:Elego
 * Who's involved?

User:Elego created Distributed Concurrent Versions System; I redirected to Concurrent Versions System because it seems to me (as an outsider) that DCVS is essentially VCS with a small if significant feature extension. I left comments on the talk page and on the user talk page explaining it. Elego (which is, purely by coincidence, the name of the ocmpany which markets DCVS) reverted that redirect with no discussion at all. Before I get into an edit war, I'd like someone else to look in and see if this genuinely merits an additional article. I think not, since the functionality is substantially identical and DCVS is based on CVS, but others might have other ideas.
 * What's going on?

See above
 * ''What would you like to change about that?

Happy to be open, User talk:Just zis Guy, you know? or Talk:Distributed Concurrent Versions System is fine.
 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Comments by others
I don't understand why DCVS must redirect to CVS, so I've hopped in and made a comment. (Not acting as a mediator here). Kim Bruning 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because as far as I can see DCVS is a product which is based on CVS, and I am uneasy about the fact that it was created by a user whose username is the same as the company selling DCVS, and the article links to DCVS, and the fact that 90%+ of the functionality is already covered in CVS. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

French accent

 * Request made by (please sign below):

AEuSoes1 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * French section of non-native pronunciations of English


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself and Agateller


 * What's going on?
 * An edit war. He and I disagree about edits that he insists on including.  His original inclusion had some edits that I agreed with and others that I did not; I kept the ones I agreed with and the ones I didn’t I removed.  He put them back in and although we exchanged a few messages to outline our points, he stopped the discussion when I moved the discussion to the talk page and continued placing his edits in even though I have reverted them and asked him to build a consensus before including his changes.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I have asked him to either build a consensus, provide some sort of adequate source for his edits (he says he is his own source but knows of many sources), or refrain from including the edits that I have been reverting. This is only on the factual statements that he includes.  There is also an issue of the way his edits describe the features that I believe unnecessarily describes accent features as absolutes rather than tendencies and I would rather his edits conform in style to the rest of the article.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * You don't need to work discreetly.

Greek Reconstructionism

 * Mediation requested by:
 * Cyberdenizen 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Who's involved?
 * IP 65.182.172.*
 * IP 71.116.133.*
 * AdelaMae
 * and whomever else has attempted to get a word in edge-wise on the talk page of Greek Reconstructionism but been gagged or brow beaten.


 * What's going on?
 * An anonymous user IP 65.182.172.* is controlling the entry and deletes and then personally attacks any who dare edit his /her prose. Needless to say there is a POV conflict here. There is an ongoing edit war. This has been mentioned by another editor here. IP 65.182.172.* is maliciously posting personal information (names, personal e-mails and headers, etc.) in the talk section over at Greek Reconstructionism. IP 65.182.172.* has edited the talk page to the point were it is almost impossible to read other user's comments or even navigate. IP 65.182.172.* has also deleted the entry Hellenic paganism and redirected it to his /her baby Greek Reconstructionism


 * Anonymous user 65.182.172.* seems to have a track record for such bullying behaviour. He /She has engaged in similar behaviour at  Italian Beef, Green Tortoise, Chicago-style hot dog, Burning Man and several other entries. For someone who is so passionate about so many divergent topics, it seems odd that he /she has the same type of interaction with almost everyone who has any opinion which differs from his.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I am requesting someone who is impartial clean up the talk page to some sort of readable format as well as give advice on how best to deal with this malicious person. I would also like uninvolved third parties to critique the page and inform me about what further actions should be used to get a cogent and accurate representation of Greek Reconstructionism without it being dominated by one user like it's an entry about scientology. I would also like to know what thus far warrants mod or arbitration committee involvement.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Here, E-mail or my user talk page.

Mediator response
Adela, diffs help. I've done some cleanup, and I think avoiding Original Research will avoid any problems there in the future. My personal rule with that is "if it doesn't seem evident, try to put in an external link or reference to show that it's not me saying it" or explain why you're an expert from personal experience with the subject making it possibly OR and ask for some Verification or ideas on if it should be included/modified/scrapped. karmafist 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

 * HappyCamper appears to have stepped in to sort out the talk page and monitor the involved parties. Rob Church Talk 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

 * Mediation requested by: (sign below)
 * Eequor


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?
 * The Arbitration Committee is being completely unreasonable with regard to Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy, having closed the request after only one member of the committee attempted to address it. Gavin the Chosen has been blocked for the duration of the request and unable to edit the request pages.  The committee has failed to communicate regarding their expectations and the sufficiency of the material provided.  The effort of the sole contributing arbiter (Fred Bauder) has been marginalized by the committee members who voted to close over his opposition.  The clearly existing problems made evident by the request remain unresolved.


 * Additionally, my objection to the closure of this request has been removed from RFAR by Raul654, which gives a strong impression that the committee is uninterested in fairness. Please help, the situation is not improving.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * The committee must address the evidence provided and the contributions to the case by Fred Bauder, and allow Gavin the Chosen to comment on the case before it can be completed.


 * I would also greatly appreciate help seeing this problem through, as I currently have neither the energy nor capacity for stress needed to pursue this very much farther.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I'd prefer not to discuss this discreetly.

Mediator response

 * Hmmm, this doesn't really look like a job for medcab at all, more one for WP:AMA. AMA has gone kind of quiet though, I'll at least go and talk to some folks and see what's up. Kim Bruning 18:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The evidence as presented didn't give the arbcom much to go on. There may or may not have been a case there, but the arbcom members are kind of overworked, so they only ever have time to look at evidence as presented, and not much more. The parties can bring the case again if they like. Kim Bruning 18:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin clash - User:Matt_Crypto and User:El_C

 * Request made by: Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * WP:AN, section "El C's block of Marsen"


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Matt_Crypto and User:El_C.


 * What's going on?
 * Apparently they're quarelling about an old case where one undid a block the other made on a third party. And some namecalling involved.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * They're both good contributors so they shouldn't be quarelling. We lose too many good editors that way.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Mediator response
Relevant policies for this case include: Civility, No personal attacks, and Blocking policy. - Kookykman| (t) e

Ingrid Newkirk

 * Mediation requested by: (sign below)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.173.105.28


 * Who's involved?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.173.105.28
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin


 * What's going on?
 * On the Ingrid Newkirk I added information to the page about Ingrid's link to criminal acts of Coronado as described in USA versus Coronado. This case happened in 1995 so the only transcript of the case I can find happens to be from a US senate committee hearing, but the hearing has scanned pages from the USA versus Coronado case.  SlimVirgin keeps editing my info to insert the word alledgedly, when it was shown it did happen.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Remove all the alledgly stuff. Conorado was proven guilty and the Fedex packages he sent to Newkirk were intercepted by the FBI.  The court case showed the link between Newkirk and the guilty party.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I'm not discreet ''(This comment added by 129.173.105.28 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))

Mediator response
I'd be happy to take a look at this. I will investigate and provide a more detailed response probably later today. Demi T/C 17:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The source is good but a little tangled (namely, what the proper attribution should be for which, etc.). I've proposed some changes based on my review on the article's talk page in an effort to further discussion. Demi T/C 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Relevant policies for this discussion include: Avoid weasel words and Welcome anonymous editing. - Kookykman| (t) e

Italian American heritage
--Doctor01 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mediation requested by:

--Doctor01 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC), Arniep mainly
 * Who's involved?

I was trying to make order in the Italian American page and I found that some Italian American personalities' heritage isn't reported and explained (example Robert De Niro, Quentin Tarantino, Madonna, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Brittany Murphy, ecc). I don't know why Arniep replaced always the American wording instead of Italian American which is widely considered correct in official biograhies and by almost everybody. That'd help me to link actors and so on to the Italian American wikipedia page. I think would be more correct to write on the header the real heritage of that personality to make information clearer and more complete. I try to explain to Arniep that nationality is implied in the birth place which is reported in the header near birth date. An Italian American actor or whatever should be reported as an Italian American not only American. That doesn't mean he/she's less American. Italian American means half Italian and half American, so a plus. I'm asking to use ethnography and biography rules. Not reporting it Italian American page wouldn't exist.
 * What's going on?

I changed American wording to Italian American in the header. I'd like my changes would stand. They're are cancelled everytime.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?

Message me. I gave my mail also.
 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Kimi_Finster

 * Mediation requested by: (sign below)
 * ...Staredcraft


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Staredcraft, Tamao, New Era Outlaw


 * What's going on?
 * ...We have this Article discussing a character from the show All Grown Up. I started this article and my friend New Era Outlaw helped. Anyway, not long after we changed things around (due to the old way was threatened to be removed) someone came by and edited out everything about Kimi as she is in All Grown Up.  I fixed everyting and things went on smoothly.  We contributed things as less bias as we can (we post detailed observations we make of the character that obviously can be counted as traits) but one day Tamao came on and altered stuff that bashed Kimi badly.  Called her bi-polar, etc.  Well we were appalled and edited that stuff out because it was lying and not at all true and THEY were biased accusations.  Sometimes someone would add something at did appear biased and we did what we could to alter it enough that it wasn't, so as not to end up in the predicament we are now.  Tamao comes around and, everytime, alters the spacing which throws off the text's location with pictures we have in it so of course we add them back in to keep balance.  Now he's claiming the article is biased and should be deleted.  He says we should let people post bashings and keep them there.  Basically he claims we should let it fall apart.  Also he says we should not include the couples section where all we are doing is including what is known about this character and are including the possible couplings she's been known to be in accross the internet that's non-crossover.  We also include indications as to how this is a possibility and likely hoods but we try to keep it as biased as possible.  In fact most of the stuff we do on this article is keep it biased as possible.  Tamao also complains the observations and traits we point out are opinionated, and I'll admit a few are but most we take as what is said/shown.  If it is show Kimi writing with both hands, we says should could do that or it could be an animation error.  If she's wearing a skaters outfit and is said to be a good ice skater we guess she can rollar blade too.  Speculation yes but again we add stuff like "It is possible" and stuff, leaving it open to opinions.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...Nothing, if needed I'm open to some changes but I'd like things to mostly stay the same. The contraversies section I'll admit is more opinionated for Kimi fans and is possible to be removed.  Tamao points out that our inclusion of Sister,Brother, a Rumored episode, should not be included and I agree with that and am already getting rid of it.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * ...my e-mail. Staredcraft@yahoo.com

Mediator response
While I'm not a member of the MedCab, I have taken it upon myself to help with this dispute as I can, since I've involved myself since the original AfD. Hopefully this is okay with the MedCab. I've left my comments on Talk:Kimi Finster. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fine, Unc. We're glad to have help! Plus, anyone can join the MedCab. :) - Kookykman| (t) e

Comments by others
I will add my comments here. As Staredcraft has said before, he and I are regular contributors to this particular article. That is not to say, however, that we are the ONLY contributors towards this article. If you take a look at the history of Kimi Finster, you will see that several others (only one is identified by name, "Angie Y.") have also put forward towards the construction of this article.

Tamao then comes on, and writes several obviously biased statements on the character, accusing her of being Bi-Polar, "weak", "selfish", "easily manipulated by others", when it is clearly not true and very biased assumptions to make about a character in any Wikipedia entry, unless it is establshed as fact (for example, Gargamel in the Smurfs is clearly an evil character for the fact that he shows evil traits in the show.) Tamao has provided no evidence to support the stated claims, so I have deleted those entries from the Wiki.

Then, Tamao returns, and deletes two of the links, without giving any explanation as to why it was done in the first place. I have since returned the links.

If you visit the article, you will see that information is quoted in parathesis to serve as proof of what is being claimed in the article, be it the episode it was aired, or quotes from the show itself. On the discussion page, I have cited all of my sources of information, which should more than suffice for evidence of what I, at least, have contributed towards this entry.

On top of that, nobody else has complained on the issue, despite the fact that several pages of this kind exist on the Wiki, in the SAME format:


 * Tommy Pickles
 * Chuckie Finster
 * Angelica Pickles
 * Dil Pickles

It is my belief that Tamao is being unscrupulous, and only wants the article deleted because of sheer dislike of the character, NOT because it is in the best interest of the forum. I also suggest that something is done about Tamao, as this person has constantly harassed this particular entry. New Era Outlaw 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish jurists

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Poetlister 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * List of Jewish jurists


 * Who's involved?
 * User:RachelBrown supported by myself, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters


 * What's going on?
 * RachelBrown made some amendments to this list - copying over names of British lawyers from the List of British Jews. Lulu has made alterations to her amendments, and very disparaging remarks, as a result of which Rachel is quite upset and contemplating leaving Wikipedia.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Have a word with Lulu and see if it is possible to get him to see reason. If it transpires that Rachel and I are in any way at fault, please tell us.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * E-mail both of us from our talk pages.

Suspected original research, requests for relevant citations denied

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * Wade A. Tisthammer 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Talk:intelligent design
 * Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 20.


 * Who's involved?
 * Wade A. Tisthammer 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC), FeloniousMonk, others


 * What's going on?
 * Request for relevant citation (to show that a given argument is not original research) is being denied.


 * The argument, "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex."


 * I have never seen this argument other than Wikipedia, and I suspect this claim to be original research. I have subsequently asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this claim.  Such requests have been repeatedly denied.


 * Citations provided so far do not consist of a leading ID opponent making this claim. Some are almost similar, e.g. a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be complex (a quote from Dawkins) but without the ID opponent mentioning irreducible complexity, claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex, or claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Hopefully get an authoritative citation. If none can be given, I suggest the argument be removed or else be replaced with a statement that can be cited, e.g. "Critics argue that the designer must be complex."


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I do not require discreetness in this case.

Mediator response
Relevant policies include: No original research, Cite your sources. As for the question, have you asked him? Try to solve the dispute with that user personally before taking it here. - Kookykman| (t) e


 * Indeed I have asked for relevant citations, but as I said above all such requests have been denied. I have tried to solve the dispute personally, and that has failed.  (Hence my presence here.)  Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Hmm, it's been over a week now without much of a mediator response. Perhaps I should go somewhere else to resolve this dispute.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others
Wade, the wikipedia policies are clear on this issue: text cannot be original. Try to revert it, if that does not work, take this dispute to the next level: arbitration. The user may have to have their rights revoked to really get the message. Steven McCrary 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some good news: the section was finally removed. Alas, the issue has been replaced by another argument I suspect to be original research:


 * the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object.


 * How does an uncaused causer contradict the assumption that a designer is needed for complex specified information? It is not explained.  What's worse, my requests of a leading ID opponent making the argument are being denied, this time on the grounds that my previous objections (as the one above regarding irreducible complexity) "failed."  But with luck and some patience, perhaps this argument will eventually be removed if no suitable citations can be given, all without resorting to arbitration.


 * One of the problems is that it isn't with just a single user, but a small group of users. Reverts tended to be reverted back and the small group cites "consensus" as justification.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: personal attacks on Telestylo

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Telestylo
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board


 * Who's involved?
 * User: William M. Connolley, User:Telestylo


 * What's going on?
 * After a brief edit war to a page that Connolley started, that user has made what I consider a string of personal attacks on me, even after I asked him to please stop.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd just like to be sure that there aren't personal attacks going on here.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * N/A

Response by William M. Connolley
Sorry: I don't see an explicit response section so I'll add one. The complaint above is a very one sided-view. This dispute blew up over The Deep (hist: ) and was begun when Ts decided to change Whilst into While. Looking over his edits, I realised that he has been doing it a lot - indeed, he seems to do very little *other* than make this change. But he does so totally indiscriminately: on Germanicus for example; or Spokeshave. For whatever bizarre reason, Ts is on a mission to rid wiki of "whilst" and can be pretty unpleasant about it.

William M. Connolley 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Comments by others
Having looked at many of the edits involved (in the absence of any specific diffs), I can't see anything in any of User:William M. Connolley's edits which could be personal, though I can't say the same of User:Telestylo's edits. I imagine any member of the cabal that looks into this will come to a similar conclusion regarding WMC. I have no prior connection to either editor. Chris talk back 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

anal sex article - explicit draw

 * Request made by (please sign below): --Alberto msr 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Anal sex article and at the talk page topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture


 * Who's involved?
 * alberto_msr, Appleboy and Dpark


 * What's going on?
 * There is a explicit sexual draw in the article (a woman inserting a strap-on dildo in a guy's anus), which does not comply with Wikipedia's Profanity policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity).

For more info on my argument, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture

The policy says: A taboo image shall not be posted unless it is essential for the article to be understood. I removed the picture and Appleboy user reverted. I reverted Appleboy's change, so the article didn't have the picture anymore. Now Dpark reverted it and the article has the picture now. I'm avoiding to create a revert-war. We need some opinion whether the image is appropriated or not.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Maybe lock the article or block image upload in the article.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * On my talk page

Conspiracy Theory

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Kim Bruning 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Apparently at Talk:Conspiracy theory. I spotted the request for assistence at this unusual location, however.


 * Who's involved?
 * Hmm, zen master and tom harrison are the folks requesting assistence, by the look of it.


 * What's going on?
 * They're saying that majoritanism might be overruling NPOV.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Try to ensure the page sticks to NPOV


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Try talking with the folks above first.

Mediator response
I gave zen-master a way to fix the problem awhile ago on his talk page, but it looks like he's still at it. Take anything with him and that article with a grain of salt. karmafist 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Help teach civility and avoid revert war

 * Request made by (please sign below): User:Piotrus
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * At the moment, Talk:History of Belarus is the hotspot. See also Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board and review the contributions of user:Ghirlanjo dealing with Polish-Russian history for a larger picture.


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk, User:Halibutt, User:Lysy and to a lesser extent others versus User:Ghirlandajo and User:Kuban kazak (at least I have not identified others supporting their POV).


 * What's going on?
 * Ghirlandajo is making many personal attacks against Poles in general and user Halibutt in particular (see his edit summaries, edits in the History of Belarus, language he uses on the talk pages), accussing others of making personal attacks when such a thing is not taking place (although some users after weeks of his attacks are beginning to lose patience) and engaging in revert wars.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * If you can convince Ghirlandajo to be civil and stop offending others, it would be a great boon. If you can teach him that revert wars are less constructive then discussing things in the talk pages, that would be another victory for the Wiki. Finally, if you can make him realize that he is not neutral but has his own point of view and thus should learn the meaning of compromise, it would be close to perfect.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * You can contact me through my talk page, I believe that the less secrets we have the better. I don't mind if user Ghirlandajo or others see my request here.

NEW SECTION - Alienus and Lokley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Alienus 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * On a number of pages concerning philosophy of the mind, particularly those involving Daniel Dennett and ideas related to his theories. Specific hot-spots include Consciousness, Cartesian materialism, Cartesian theater, and Multiple Drafts Model.


 * Who's involved?
 * Me and loxley.


 * What's going on?
 * I found a number of gaps, as well as factual and bias errors on these pages, so I've worked to fix them, contributing substantial new material and providing references. Loxley disagrees with my changes and keeps reverting or damaging them in various ways.  We're at the point where he just reverted a few pages of my work without comment.

It appears that Loxley strongly supports one warring camp of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, so his changes are largely focused on defining Dennett as negatively as possible. Besides the excess POV, he does not possess a clear understanding of Dennett's work, so he's also making numerous factual errors. I've done my best to merge in whatever good parts he's added, clarify things that could be misunderstood and generally put together better pages. His counter-changes started off as reasonable if flawed, but have progressed to simple vandalism.

I've tried to discuss this with him, but it has not been productive. From my point of view, he's been argumentative, unresponsive and very deeply biased. I've lost respect for him, and now just consider him a heckler who doesn't even understand what he's heckling at. I suspect that he found me impatient and, from where he stands, partisan. I freely admit that I am entirely out of patience with him, and he could probably point out responses where I failed to control my anger, especially after he started erasing key parts of pages just because he disagrees with them.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I want this this edit war to stop before it even gets into its full swing and triggers automatic protections against reverts. I'm quite willing to accept unbiased and supported changes by him., but I'm not willing to stand by while he ignorantly pisses on Dennett. I'm angry and disgusted.

Ideally, I would like to come to some mutual agreement so we can both positively participate in making these pages better. Precisely because he is so fond of people like Chalmers and Block, he could add balance by reporting on their views. However, as things stand, his contributons are of negative net value.

It may well be that our personalities class and he's more reasonable when dealing with other people. It may well be that I'm particularly impatient with him because I perceive him as intentionally damaging my work. If so, then a third party might be able to resolve this.

If not, then it's going to come down to blocking one or both of us from changing these and related pages, at least until this calms down.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I'm not particularly concerned about discretion. I can be reached most conveniently by email, but you could also write to my talk page.  If it helps, I ask me by email for my AIM account name. I'm located in the Eastern Standard Time zone.

NEW SECTION - Bag edit war

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * Janet13 18:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * bag


 * Who's involved?
 * A number of IP addresses who didn't sign their names, User: Joy_Stovall, User: Janet13


 * What's going on?
 * Edit war over bag used as an insult; Joyous and I would like to remove it because it's un-referenced, reads like a bad list, and there seems to be no real attempts to turn it encyclopedic, just reversions. I normally wouldn't care, but recently, I've become more sensitive of the arguments over the encylopedia-ness of wikipedia.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Come to a consensus - either leave the insults if there are references and/or better explanations, or else remove them.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * N/A

NEW SECTION - Pauline Hanson

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Pauline Hanson and its talk page.


 * Who's involved?
 * Phil45, GG99, Phil888, Mark34, Squilibob, Astrokey44, Ben Aveling


 * What's going on?
 * It's an edit war now, multiple new users have been created just to revert the page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I need that section of the article reviewed by a third party or a committee and the Pauline Hanson page watched for a short while.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Comments by others
- Squilibob 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Update added more information - Squilibob 07:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW SECTION - Word (disambiguation)

 * Request made by: Shinobu
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Word (disambiguation)


 * Who's involved?
 * I am, as well as Mihai cartoaje, jiy, Kusma, R. S. Shaw, Gimboid13.


 * What's going on?
 * There is a disagreement as to whether Microsoft Word should be on the list. Mihai in particular thinks it's wrong to have MS Word on the list. See the talk page for all opinions and details.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would appreciate it if we could somehow work out who is right or perhaps find another solution so that we don't have to revert each other continuously.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * On my user talk page is plenty discreet enough.

Comments by Others

 * Why not have a link on the disambiguation page that points to a list of computer programs that have word in their name or something like that? - Squilibob 10:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW SECTION - Natalinasmpf on Communism

 * From: 24.91.136.214:
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Communism


 * Who's involved?
 * Natalinasmpf vs myself (24.91.136.214)


 * What's going on?
 * Edit war
 * Repeated removals of "disputed" tags prior to resolution of disupted issues
 * Repeated removal of statements which are backed by verifiable sources which cast doubt on the statements in the current text which lack verifiable sources, are "original research", are not neutral point of view, and in my opinion, just plain wrong.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like statements for which there are no verifiable sources, i.e. "Original research" removed. I would also like Natalinasmpf to abide by the 3 revert policy.  I would also like Natalinasmpf to respect the posting of "disputed" tags until factual disputes have been resolved.  After the factual issues are resolved, I would like to make edits to remove biased point of view.


 * One specific issue that I would like to see addressed is the following. The text of the "Under the Commintern" section contains the statements:


 * Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to their ideological mission, to create a working class itself.


 * For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established.


 * Taken without any other context, the statement: "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place." is true. Without any other context, the statement says nothing about Marx's theory regarding revolutions where capitalist development was not the most advanced or where a large working class was not in place.  However, in the context in question, the statement was obviously meant to be a statement of contrast between what Marx believed regarding revolutions "where capitalist development was most advanced" and Russia.  The implicit meaning is something along the lines of "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur *earlier* where capitalist development was the most advanced, and *later* where it was not so advanced.


 * The idea that the latter result is a consequence of Marx's theory is "original research" and is not supported by verifiable sources. However the contrary idea, namely that a Russian revolution could provide a signal for workers revolution in the West, (that is precede revolutions in countries where capitalist development was most advanced) is documented at


 * http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882


 * I would like to make a comment regarding the editting of the Communism page in general. The editting history, as well as the talk, shows that a small group of individuals, including Natalinasmpf have taken it upon themselves to be the guardians of the existing page, and act to thwart any independent editting.  This could be either good or bad depending upon circumstances.  Wikipedia has espoused the goals of Verifiability, No "Original Research" and  Neutral Point of View.  These goals, together with the ability of countless individuals to make contributions to Wikipedia provide the basis for something truly great, something truly better than existing encyclopedias.  I frequent the Math sections of Wikipedia, and note that already the math sections of Wikipedia are more extensive, and hence more useful than the encyclopedias which were available to me in my younger days.


 * The group which has taken virtual posession of the Communism page, however, appear to want to drag Wikipedia back toward the Encyclopedias of yesteryear. Encyclopedia Britannica is cited as a model.  However, the older encyclopedias were commercial undertakings.  As commercial undertakings they often reduced content for the sake of cutting costs.  But perhaps more importantly, as commercial undertakings, they were subject to the influences of politics.  In my opinion, this led to a significant lack of neutrality in their articles on political subjects.  Blocking the appearance of verifiable facts which challenge the nice tidy narratives told in some articles might give the appearance of being more "encyclopedic", but in reality is an obstacle to the development of objective, verifiable articles.  For this reason, I would hope that a mediator will give suggestions to this group that they take a friendlier view towards the inclusion of information which is supported by verifiable sources, and take a harsher look at narratives that may seem to be the "consensus" of their group, which may tell a pleasing story, but which are not supported by factual evidence.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * n/a

-- 24.91.136.214

Mediator response

 * Wait. I actually read the one issue. The wording is a tad bulky. :-/ Hmm, so basically you'd like to remove some bias from the communism article, but the article is gaurded? Kim Bruning 14:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW SECTION - Stub Ownership and Rudeness

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Minor Violations of WP:NPA,WP:AGF Violations of WP:OWN


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Grutness, some others.


 * What's going on?
 * ...Grutness & the stub regulars have broken WP:OWN in regards to basically the entire stub sorting system (WP:SFD,etc.) through what i've seen, and I assume he thinks that my dislike for the instruction creep over there smacks of WP:POINT.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...Just to put in stubs in peace without having to go to some sub-sub page to see if I need to capitalize a letter or not or to put in a space or not or a hyphen or not or to a abbreviate something or not.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * ...I don't care either way. Talk page works fine.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities)

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * William Allen Simpson 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Naming conventions (subnational entities)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (subnational entities)


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Tobias_Conradi offender
 * User:Golbez, User:WilliamAllenSimpson


 * What's going on?
 * (Mr/Ms) Conradi has been Vandalizing the page by changing the names of proposals, "Nasty editting", massively modifying others' entries in successive steps numbering in the dozens, and reverting and moving the pages. Administrator action has made 8 deleted edits to correct this problem (so far).


 * In addition, on the Project talk page, Conradi has engaged in personal attacks, name calling, comparing to "genocid", etc. I've posted the levels of WP:VIP warning on her/his talk page, and presumably Golbez has done the same, but it's quickly deleted there.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Folks would like to make substantive contributions on a Proposed Guideline page. The easiest solution would be for this disruptor to be banned for life, as apparently s/he has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere -- but for now, just leaving folks alone in this one place would be helpful in the short run.


 * I brought it here first, as there might be a serious language impediment or cultural difference. There have been obvious lapses in Conradi's English language skills (probably en-1, unlikely en-2, certainly not the self-reported en-3). William Allen Simpson


 * On a hunch, I checked against de.wiki as that's listed on Conradi's user page as a native language. It may not be a language problem.  Possible personality disorder.  S/he's got deleted pages there, too &mdash; although not as many as the 271 to date here. William Allen Simpson 12:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Oh, it's too late to be discrete, Project talk page is fine (but Google is your friend)....

NEW SECTION - Biography for Jim Hightower

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * --Randomdeanna 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Jim Hightower


 * Who's involved?
 * Me (geek for Hightower); Laura74 (Hightower's research manager); anonymous user at IP 12.217.121.245


 * What's going on?
 * Laura and I are trying to correct inaccuracies about who Hightower has and hasn't endorsed. User at above IP address puts things back in after we remove them. We understand that people want to contribute to the bio page, but not only is the info just plain wrong, the user then left an unwarranted nasty comment for Laura on the Talk page (after she left the user a nice note on user's talk page). User has a history of participating/instigating edit wars.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * It's now at the edit-war stage, and I'd like to get this resolved so that the three of us don't just keep reverting each others' edits and wasting time.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * N/A

Was Jefferson a Mason?

 * Request made by (please sign below):

--SarekOfVulcan 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * List of Freemasons


 * Who's involved?
 * Primarily User:SarekOfVulcan and User:KJVTRUTH


 * What's going on?
 * Current Masonic scholarship says that despite past belief, Thomas Jefferson was never actually a Freemason. Many Masonic sites, though, have not quite caught up with that, unfortunately. I (and others) am trying to keep him off the List of Freemasons -- KJVTRUTH is trying just as hard to put him back on.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like him to agree with me, naturally. :-) Failing that, I'd like an outside view of the dueling cites, to see which is more relevant for the purposes of this article.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * No particular discretion necessary, but my email is linked to my account.

Comments by others
from user:KJVTRUTH, I have in my possesion a (1955 Masonic Bible) that lists Presidents who have been Masons. It plainly states on the Page for Thomas Jefferson "there are unmistakable evidences that he was an active Mason" The bible also on the page lists his involvement with the laying of the Corner Stone for Central College in 1817, He is listed by Charlottsville Lodge No. 90 as a visitor present at these ceremonies. "Masons" of today do not want to call Thomas Jefferson a brother, possibly because of his letters with Adam Weishaup who founded the Illuminati. Wanting someone to NOT be a Mason Today, can't change the fact they were one in the past.

Issues with Skinwalker

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Canaen 07:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * My talk page occasionally, Talk:Veganism, and Skinwalker's talk page, particularly User talk:Skinwalker. It could soon spread to Environmental vegetarianism.


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself, Skinwalker. Very possibly Idelguy and Viriditas, though nto as of yet.


 * What's going on?
 * There's been quite a bit of nonsense going on at Veganism lately. I was absent for the article for quite awhile, and recently returned with a bit more permanence. It appears I returned at a rough time, fresh out of a recent protection. Disputed content was found, and removed until a discussion could take place (which didn't occur). Incessant reverting occurred, resulting in another protection of the page. Accusations arose between myself and another user. Then, one more came in supporting the other. In the process, Skinwalker decided decided to jump on the wagon, and make false accusations of myself, Nidara and several anonymous users. Finally, we (Francis, Nidara and Myself managed to organize a clear, proper consensus vote to get the page restored, and other users jumped in as well. Once this was near completion, Skinwalker came back, requesting an RfC before a request to remove the protection, and filed the request. I dated the request, and updated the status of the situation. Skinwalker then accused me of vandalism, and threatened to report me as a vandal. See [User talk:Skinwalker#Veganism_RfC] for that matter. All the while, he didn't contribute to the process of getting the article running again; he simple hindered it (from mine and others' positions, at least).


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Frankly, I have a bit of fear instilled in me from the words of Skinwalker, past words, and of an apparently related group of users. I have every reason to believe that as soon as I make an attempt to report any of them for Wikicrimes, incivility, personal attacks, or harassment, they will instantly accuse me of the same (this has been done to me by them), and report me in kind. I'm not sure if any of them would be able to delete/hide my report while they do so. I'd like to be able to work on Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism without this harrassment. I dislike banning users; it doesn't usually help the encyclopedia. Everyone has something to contribute. I simply want peace. If there's nothing that can be done, I might be forced to attempt use of official paths, and I don't want that. I hope that the Mediation Cabal can help.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Yes, I think that would be best at present. My email is: uuconpunk at gmail.com I also use AIM frequently: anarchopunk17 As well, I am Canaen on freenode.IRC, and when I'm on I try to maintain a presence in the Wikipedia channel, though usually inactively.

NEW SECTION - Put the name of your case here

 * Request made by (please sign below):
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?


 * ''What would you like to change about that?


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?