Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-15/Pyx Lux

Where is the dispute?
Pyx Lux

Who is involved?

 * User:Pavlos Andronikos
 * User:Stelio
 * User:HelloAnnyong (third opinion, by request)

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

What is the dispute?
The page "Pyx Lux" (a latinisation of the Greek "Πυξ Λαξ") does not follow the policy in WP:NAME. The user that created the page disagreed and opposed this viewpoint, descending as far as "responding to tone" in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. A third opinion was requested, which was again opposed by the page's creator. He has since deleted another person's opinion from the talk page.

What would you like to change about this?
It would be lovely to get an experienced mediator involved who can handle the situation with grace and effectiveness.

How do you think we can help?
Through your prior experience in mediation, I hope that you can engage the page's creator constructively, helping him to understand the meaning and worth of Wikipedia's policies. I fear that I cannot stay involved without the style of the discussion stressfully frustrating me.

Mediator notes
Hi Stelio, please could you inform the other two parties that you have opened this case and ask them to accept the mediation by signing under the 'Acceptance of mediation' header? Bob House 884 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I see that Pavlos Andronikos‎ finally accepted consensus and moved the page from Pyx Lux to Pyx Lax on 15 April 2011. Mediation is therefore no longer required. -Stelio (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Response
Dear Bob House 884,

This request by Stelios for “mediation” is unacceptable and should be deleted. It is not a genuine request for mediation but for back-up support against an editor who is unjustly presented as unreasonable. Worse, it makes accusations which are without justification (1 below), and it is economical with the truth in order to create a negative impression of the “unreasonable editor” (1 & 2 below).

1.	Stelios’ claim that I did “not follow the policy in WP:NAME” is misleading. I indicated as early as 7 Feb 2010, that the “established systematic transliteration” Pyx Lax would be acceptable, but he insisted on Pix Lax, which is half phonetic transcription and half systematic transliteration.

2.	Stelios states that I deleted an (anonymous) opinion but fails to say why I deleted it, even though I made this clear in my note to the deletion. The opinion was clearly abusive in that it attacked me personally.

Stelios presents himself as blameless but that is not so. He reveals here for the first time that he asked for a “third opinion” from HelloAnnyong, but he did this without informing me, and without my agreeing to a third opinion. When HelloAnnyong barged into the dispute, he did not let it be known that he had been asked to intercede by Stelios. On the contrary the phrasing of HelloAnnyong’s first message implied that he had come across the dispute by chance (“Hey. I see that there's a third opinion open for this page...”), and when I asked whether he had been asked to help, HelloAnnyong did not answer the question. These facts could be seen as indicative of collusion.

Even this request for mediation is underhand. If I had not come across it by chance I would not have known about it, or known that accusations were being made against me. This hardly seems acceptable practice, and I think Wikipedia needs to consider very carefully the implications.

In his most recent message appended to the Discussion section, Stelios claims that I “finally accepted consensus”. That is not so. Stelios wanted to change the name of the article to Pix Lax, not Pyx Lax, and HelloAnnyong agreed with him. In fact, as mentioned above, I indicated as early as 7 Feb 2010 that Pyx Lax was a justifiable option, whereas Pix Lax was not, and my views have not changed. --Pavlos Andronikos (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)