Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-19 Ludwig II of Bavaria

Request Information

 * Request made by: Maaya 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Ludwig II of Bavaria and the talk page there.


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Maaya, Anon:80.141.117.77, User:Engleham, and maybe User:Hugh7


 * What's going on?
 * I think I may be a little too close to the Ludwig II of Bavaria article. I, along with an anonymous user, have been reverting edits by two other editors (whom I suspect may be one and the same, but that's neither here nor there).  There has been some minor squabbling, including labelling my attempts at explanation on the talk page 'patently ridiculous' and 'homophobic'. I ignored the minor insults to myself and tried to keep things from getting too heated.  User:Engelham then reverted again and put in the Edit summary that any further changes to his edits would be considered 'homophobic vandalism'.  It was the same uncited material that he put in before, so I reverted it.  There have always been rumours that Ludwig II was gay, and I have no problem with that being in the article; there are other mentions of his secret affairs and his diary, but I'd like to keep the uncited material out.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I put a note on the talk page after my revert that any further edits must be cited, but I'm afraid this whole thing is going to just blow up in my face. I'd like some outside assistance to check my behaviour, and possibly some help getting things calmed down.  I mean, if my earlier explanation on the talk page was taken so harshly, I can't imagine where it will go from here.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * My talk page is fine.  Everything is fine now.  Feel free to close this.  Maaya 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Disputes seem to have stabilized since request, left requester a message. --Wgfinley 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing, no response, can be reopened if interest. Appears resolved now I should say! --Wgfinley 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)