Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 09

Lance6Wins and Zero0000
I have added these two here, because of problems on wikien. -SV
 * I've just found this issue on arbitration, under "Lance6wins..." -SV 17:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel
''This has been archived to to allow for the request at Requests for comment/Rex071404 to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 16:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)''

Rex appears to have little interest in and understanding of building consensus, compromise, and NPOV. He has spammed the talk page of John Kerry so much that it had to be archived twice in two days. He is polite when it suits him but has engaged in frequent insults (including calling one editor a "bigot") and constantly attributes the basest motives to those who disagree (and occasionally those who do agree), throwing around phrases like "pro-Kerry sycophant" with regularity. As a result of his actions, the John Kerry article has been protected, prohibiting edits at a time when current events may require the page to be updated frequently. His constant, repetitive barrage of negative postings on the talk page have generally inhibited efforts to reach consensus. In short, I’m tired of being accused of being biased every time I breathe, and perhaps an outside party can reason with him because the efforts of half a dozen editors have thus far failed.

See Requests for comment/Rex071404, Talk:John Kerry, and the talk pages of myself, Ambivalenthysteria, Gzornenplatz, Neutrality, etc. Gamaliel 01:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex replies: Gamaliel utterly misstates the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that user Neutrality intentionally started an edit war with me in the same vein that he was involved with one on George_W._Bush with another user. In my view, there is a cotiere of pro-Kerry editors who have staked out the John Kerry page and have each in turn, taken dismissivly critical pot-shots at each of my suggestions - that is when they bother to say anything. More often, they've simply reverted me without comment or dicussion. And now, during the attempt to reach consensus, many of them sit on the sidelines, silent. After all John Kerry is now "protected", with a "locked-in" pro-Kerry bias, so they can afford to wait me out. However, there are few who have made some positive suggestions and to those, I have responded positively. For example, I have revised (3) times one of my sections which Neutrality kept reverting me on. And this is only during the current discussion phase. Prior to that, I had already tweaked it several times. All my changes have been aimed towards consensus, yet mostly everything I've suggested has been ridiculed or dismissed along the lines of it lacking importance - or simply ignored. Rex071404 02:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As a member of the Mediation Committee, I recuse myself from any involvment in the case and suggest a referral to ArbCom. In addition, I would like to note that seven respected users and myself have concurred with a user complaint aganist Rex071404 at RfC, and he is unlikely to be cooperative at mediation.--Neutrality 02:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Rex, do you accept mediation? Do any of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There is a list of committee members at Mediation Committee.--Neutrality 03:01, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutrality, I thought you "recused" yourself. As I understand the concept of recusal, from the moment it's invoked, the recused party dis-involves himself. How can you then, possibly think that you are still entitled to comment and asked questions? Also, as plainly as I have been able to say, I accuse you of intentionally starting an edit war. Since you stand accused in this matter, you are not in a position to question me on it, wouldn't you say? Having said all that, I object to "mediation" as being not ripe at this point. I am making offers towards reaching consensus, but Gamaliel is not responding, nor offering me his own. Plus, the underlying basis for Gamaliel's complaints about me is vitiated by the plain and obvious Wiki disclaimer at the top of the John Kerry talk page, which I shall quote for you: "Point-of-View Notice: The 2004 U.S. presidential campaign is underway. The race will likely be heated and partisan; the related Wikipedia articles may be the focus of contention and debate—possibly diminishing their neutrality."  Please note that Gamaliel had fair warning that that the discussion is likely to be contentious and for that reson, the principle of "assumption of the risk" applies. He willing jumped in with both feet, but now it seems his feelings are hurt. Even so, if they are, I am sorry for that. Please extend to him my apologies - for all slights, real or imagined. There, now that Gamaliel's hurt feelings have been assuaged, can we please get back to the task of actually trying to come up with a postable text on the disputed sections of John Kerry that we can all agree on? Did you see my v.3 version of VVAW? What do you think of it? Please advise. Rex071404 03:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I also recuse myself from this case, and also suggest a referral to the Arbitration Committee. While it may be worth a shot to attempt to solve this peacefully, I concur with what Neutrality has said and doubt the likelihood of effectiveness here, considering this user's record of personal attacks. Also, it's worth noting that User:Lyellin attempted to step in and unofficially mediate, and was personally attacked for her efforts. Ambi 03:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * His ;) (It's an odd name I know. I'll put the story on my user page sometime). Lyellin 07:01, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't been involved in this dispute from the very beginning, but I've had considerable involvement over the last several days. Like User:Lyellin, I tried to help develop language that would improve the presentation of the "pro-Kerry" information and of the "anti-Kerry" information.  All these efforts have resulted in essentially no progress.  Mediation would likely meet the same fate.  I strongly support referral to the Arbitration Committee.  In view of the urgency of being able to edit this article at a time when major events are happening and its subject is in the news, I also urge that the referral be done as soon as possible. JamesMLane 04:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * After seeing the Request for Comment, I decided to come by and check out the offending section. To me, what makes this impossible to actually come to a conclusion with is that half of hte battles are using clearly POV sources as citations. beyond that, half the time it winds up being "who can post replies the fastest", and ignoring efforts. I came to the page with no prior involvement at all (I don't think I've even viewed the JK page). I attempted several times to ask for calmer words, and have twice now rewritten sections to work towards a compromise, taking out the wording viewed as POV, while still trying to include the information that Rex wants in the page. For that, I've been accused of not caring about the truth, and just wanting to put forward pro-kerry items, which seems to be Rex's fallback if he doesn't agree with what someone says. Lyellin 07:01, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

'''Rex has turned down mediation (see above). MC votes on referring to ArbCom:'''

Rex replies: I did not "turn down" mediation. I objected to it as not being ripe at this point. Typically one expects an answer to an objection and is afforded an opportunity to re-think before additional escalation. It appears that's not how things work around here. Rex071404 03:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you check the history on this page, you will see that user Neutrality has entered the above heading which mischaracterizes my objection as a "turn down" and further, he has done this even after he proclaimed himself "recused". For this reason, and becasue I contend that Neutrality himself initiated, via unexplanied and unwarranted wholesale revisions of my postings to John Kerry the edit war from which this dispute has morphed, I ask that Neutrality be barred from further comment on this topic in any leadership role until the snafus at John Kerry are ironed out. Rex071404 03:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, please take note that it was Neutrality who came in behind me and rephrased the text of the "Article Content" Rfc which I filed. In fact, even after I went back in and restored my original wording Neutrality went back in after me a 2nd time a reverted my wording again! I am flabbergasted! Did I ask for that Rfc or not? Am I entitled to ask a questionn without Neutrality changing my verbiage? Also, please take note that the 1st time Neutrality changed my Rfc question, he did not even get the year right in his replacment question. I am at a loss here... How can I complain about this pattern of slapping me down that Neutrality is engaged against me? Rex071404


 * Well, you could do a Request for Comment on Neutrality, but having some familiarity with the history here, I doubt you would gain much satisfaction. Regarding Neutrality changing the wording on the RfC, the instructions clearly state Please add a brief, neutral statement of the issue involved. Don't list arguments for or against any position, or try to assign blame for the dispute. Your original was argumentative and Neutrality was justified in changing the wording. If you did not actually refuse mediation, then all you needed to do was say so--there was no need for the histrionics. older &ne; wiser 04:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) PS, you might want to take a look at Association of Members' Advocates and avail yourself of their assistance.


 * Well, I'm available. -SV 04:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops - read only down to the above section. SV 04:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Rex, do you or don't you accept mediation? Ambi 07:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex replies: Ambi, thank you for asking the questiomn. I feel that by saying you are "confused" it means either a) you did not read my answers (see above) or b) you are disregarding them?

To repeat: This issue is not yet ripe for mediation yet as the complaining parties will not submit any critiques of my amended suggested post to the VVAW section of John Kerry. As far as I am concerned, I am still trying to reach consensus.

At the same time, the talk page of John Kerry clearly states that subject "may be the focus of contention and debate..." Nonetheless, if I have offended various Wikis with an aggressive apporoach, I apologize and can only point out that one learns the Wiki culture by speaking the language over time.

Even so,I would have no problem with someone asserting that I am "shilling" or being a "syncophant" or even stating that I am acting as "bigot" provided it's in the right context.

However, I have found through this dicussion that some others would prefer I not refer to them that way, and if you notice, as this dialog has progressed, my tone has softened considerably. I will not however desist from my assertion that various editors who have taken an interest in the John Kerry page, are indeed overly biased in favor of Kerry.

As I see it, we are still at the point of attempting to come up with a postable text for the '71 VVAW meeting. Go back and look at the additions to the Kerry discussion page over the last 24 hours and then tell me if I have not gone the extra mile in trying to reach consensus...

The fact is that my v.3 version of VVAW is actually quite soft on Kerry, while at the same time, allows the reader to understand that VVAW and Kerry's time in it, was indeed controversial.

But guess what? Rather than help me tweak my version further so we can all agree in it, the complaining persons are stuck in a time warp - still complaining about stuff from several days ago, when emotions were running higher. Check my trail of comments that I have left for certain other Wikis in the last 1-2 days. They've be more than congenial enough, so it's clear that I have made the effort to bring my tone into line and have successful done so.

As far as I can see, the person(s) who are complaing about me are simply frustrated that I am detail oriented and have factual soruces that do not favor Kerry. Even so, facts are facts and once proven true, become the basis for valid information.

My facts offered about Kerry are true. The only open question is how to present those facts with the lease amount of POV.

I am assiduously working in that direction and I therfore ask the others involved here to brush aside their hurt feelings from a few days ago and get back on board.

I am convinced that if the few remaining complainers would submit to the group for consideration, a modified (as they see fit) example of my v.3 VVAW section for consideration, we could easily pick one by Sunday night at the latest.

And this would give us enough momentum that we could easily address the other bones of contention as well.

Following this course of action, there is no reason why the "protection" on John Kerry could not be removed by Wed. Aug 4th at the latest.

Since I am amendable to renewed efforts towards reaching consensus, the proper question to ask is: Is this also true about the others? And if so, let's see some NEW proof in the pudding from them - let's see thier new suggestions towards comprimise text.

And let's not just a keep focusing on past complaints. I am trying to move this forward towards group agreement - are you?

Rex071404 19:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 with Neutrality
In regards to Neutrality and the John Kerry page, I am concerned as follows:


 * Up until about a week ago, since joining the discussion there about a month ago (as a then new user) I was exhibiting poor interpersonal commentary style on the Talk page of John Kerry. This led to acrimony and bruised feelings.
 * Concurrent with that, I blundered into some edit/revert battles regarding certain edits.
 * This culminated in a 24 ban against me by Snowspinner
 * Since that time, I have exercised far greater care in my interpersonal commentary and am no longer being accused of personal invective.
 * And since that time, I have not pressed any revert/edit issues to the point of contributing to a "protection" of John Kerry (which had happened involving me vs others 1-2 times before).
 * Also, I am going to greater lengths to discuss in detail, contentious edits on the Talk page.
 * My efforts to improve in that regard have been well received on the talk page and can be seen by reading that page.
 * However, quite apart from the ordinary disagreeemnts that might exist on a Talk page, I feel that Neutrality is overzealous in monitoring and modifying my edits. In fact, he recently took this to such an extreme that he actually moved my entry on an Arbitration Evidence page to the discussion page for that evidence page. I contacted the Arbitrators about that, and was informed by one that this move by Neutrality of my entry was not appropriate.
 * To me, Neutrality's moving of my evidence is the final straw. I am now convinced that without mediation, Neutrality and I cannot cooperatively co-exist on this Wiki - not so long as he is hovering over and interfering with my every edit.
 * I ask for mediation between myself and Neutrality. I feel that the broken dialog between us is the last remaining impediment to concluding the other's users concerns about me in regards to John Kerry and I also feel that it is the last remaining impediment to me being able to claim an equal editorial role in this, our egalitarian Wiki. Rex071404 16:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I decline mediation. A multiparty arbitration request is currently ongoing against Rex071404. This mediation request is further evidence that Rex continues to show no willingness to make a meaningful effort at ceasing his inappropriate conduct &mdash; to be very blunt, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and lying. I see no indication why mediation would be anything but a waste of time. Neutrality 19:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and user:Darrien
I have worked for quite some time on the Race article. After lengthy discussion between parties who advocated conflicting views (race is a scientifically valid term for a biologically real thing; versus race has no biological reality and the term is rejected by mainstream science) I think a pretty good NPOV compromise was achieved. Recently, someone posted a series of photographs to illustrate races (with a caption like, "People of different races"). This clearly takes one of the points of view of the article (without any explantion). It in no way reflects the compromises worked out over quite some time by various participants.

Although I initially advocated deleting the photographs altogether, Rikurzhen modified the caption so that it would better reflect the article as a whole. I made some further changes to the caption, which others have supported.

Since that time (around August 1) a user who was new to the page reverted the caption, replacing the work Rikurshen and I did with the earlier, misleading (if not plain inaccurate) caption "people of different races." SInce that time I, POM, and others have restored the lengthier caption. Darrien has reverted nine times'' since then.


 * Wrong. I reverted four times before I started using a different caption in an attempt to come to an agreement. -Darrien

At an earlier stage in the discussion someone suggested a straw-poll, but nothing came of that (instead, participants negotiated over a variety of issues, leading to two sets of photos being included). At another stage someone invited other wikipedians to join in; one did, but it did not lead to any productive discussion. May sense is that Rikurzhen, POM, Tannin, and myself agree that the extended caption is required. Darrien keeps reverting.


 * It's not an extended caption. It's useless commentary that does nothing but distract the reader. A caption should only describe a picture. -Darrien

I have asked, several times, that Darrien join the discussion on the talk page -- expand on his (or her) reasons and respond to ours. S/he has never (as far as I can tell) participated in the talk page. I left a message on Darrien's own page asking him/her to stop reverting or to seek mediation. Darrien responded not by a commnent on my talk page or the article's talk page, but simply by reverting the caption once more.


 * My appologies, I assumed you were just a troll trying to raise a ruckus. I never thought someone could actually think that the caption you kept reverting to was beneficial to the article. -Darrien

I am tempted to block this user or freeze the page, but I have been involved in this from the beginning and can't abuse my sysop abilities. But this constant reversion has to stop -- and Darrien has to learn to communicate and compromise with others. Slrubenstein 16:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I concur with what Slrubenstein has said above. Darrien has been around long enough to predict the result of reverting an article repeatedly with no justification given on the talk page even after being requested to do so. The question is why he would do something guaranteed to get the page protected. -P0M


 * It needed no more justification than what was given in the edit summary.

§ The issue is a substantial one, perhaps best illustrated by the caption and the following text at 11:01 on 3 August: -P0M


 * People from various races. (Caption.)


 * ...use [of the term "race"] is often controversial, largely because.... but also because of disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races. -Darrien

§ Pictures are very powerful in their psychological effect. The picture + caption says, "These are people of different race." That undermines the reasoned contention that there are strong "disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races," and it introduces a logical contradiction. -P0M


 * User User:Jalnet2 attemped to achieve a neutral caption by describing the picture with the caption "Various world leaders". This was reverted by Slrubenstein to which I reverted back. It was subsequently reverted again. When I realised that people were having issues with the implication of human races, I also changed it to "Pictures of people considered to be from different races" and "Various people representing the diversity of the human race". Though in retrospect I suppose that "human species" may have been more appropriate. -Darrien

§ It is difficult to get clear on these issues, and until one is clear on the ramifications of the article contents it would be very unlikely that one could provide an appropriate illustration. For Darrien to interfere in an ongoing process of debate and negotiation over the illustration issue without any attempt to address the issues has been very unhelpful. P0M 18:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've left a message at User talk:Darrien asking if he is interested in participating in mediation. moink 19:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Very well. All I want is an image caption. Not a long, semi-coherent spew of text. It also seem from this edit, Slrubenstein and I want the same thing. Why we are going through the mediation process is beyond me. - Darrien?


 * Do either of you have any preferences for a mediator? moink 20:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not particularly. Though if I was forced to choose, any of the following (in no order of preference) would be acceptable:
 * Ambi
 * Angela
 * Bcorr
 * Cimon Avaro
 * Danny
 * Ed Poor
 * Neutrality


 * Darrien 20:40, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)


 * Any of the above are fine with me. Darrien wonders why I asked for mediation?  Well, because (1) he never responded to or engaged any discussion on the talk page, and (2) he did not respond to my comment on his talk page.  By the way, the fact that he would dismiss an editor's view simply because he can't believe anyone would have that view does not bode well for congeniality or collaboration with a larger community. Slrubenstein


 * Please concentrate on the issues at hand. Poisoning the well does nothing but make you look childish. -Darrien 17:33, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
 * Well, this might be too obvious for words, Darrien, but it is your comments that look somewhat childish. I would be happy to mediate, if this issue isnt already resolved by common sense and discussion. -SV 02:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Resolved. Let's wait a couple of days and then archive this one. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole and User:Gzornenplatz, User:Samboy
This is manifestly useless, but since the arbitrators like to say "try mediation first" as an excuse for not handling cases, I am formally requesting mediation regarding Gene Poole's removal of an accuracy dispute notice on Sealand. The talk page shows that several users have disputed the accuracy of that article, but all attempts at fixing the article have been reverted by Gene Poole and like-minded users. Gzornenplatz 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I object to this request for mediation on the basis of the fact that it has been made on obviously spurious grounds by an editor with a very obvious axe to grind when it comes to anything to do with any combination of myself and micronations. The editor has waged a long, active and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to modify, delete and then keep deleted the Empire of Atlantium article, and to delete all references to the Empire of Atlantium from the Micronation article. Part of this campaign has I believe, involved practises that may warrant further investigation by administrators with the ability to trace IP addresses. It is no coincidence that his/her attentions have now shifted to this related subject - which he/she apears to feel is unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia unless presented in a derogatory manner in support of his/her widely-circulated POV on the subject of micronations generally. The editor has had as much opportunity as any other editor to post comments to the relevant talk page, and implement any changes to the alleged "factual inaccuracies" within the article that appear to cause him/her such concern, but has elected not to do so, instead limiting him/herself to making vague accusations about "reversions" by myself and unnamed others. Clearly this editor cannot grasp the concept that those who disagree with his/her opinions on subjects he/she finds disagreeable have as much right to propose content changes as he/she does himself. He/she also conveniently overlooks the fact that significant re-writing of the article has been undertaken by a consensus of multiple individuals over a long period.--Gene_poole 11:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Gene Poole" acts in an infammitory manner towards me, Gzornenplatz, and other editors, as I have documented here. This needs to be taken to mediation, and I want to be on the side against "Gene_poole".  I have little faith that this can be resolved via mediation, but a miracle may yet happen.  Samboy 00:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco and Cantus
I would like to request mediation with Cantus on the dispute detailed at Requests for arbitration/Guanaco. I am hoping that we can try to resolve this peacefully without resorting to arbitration at this point. Guanaco 06:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What dispute? There is no dispute. There is only stuff that you did that was wrong under Wikipedia policy, and that you deserve punishment for that. Calling this a dispute when there is ample irrefutable evidence to the contrary shows a lack of judgment and, IMHO, a lack of respect for Wikipedia policies. And given the fact that you are actually an admin, this is all the more worrying. Reject. (P.S.: As an interesting precedent showing that mediation is not a required step for Arbitration, User:Wik (R.I.P) opened an RfA on me without priorly asking me for mediation. And I got on a permanent revert parole for it.). --Cantus 07:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

User:Johnleemk and User:Drbalaji md
Drbalaji has engaged in repeated personal attacks and false allegations (regarding my usage of sysop powers) on me, including on Talk:Main page. He has also labeled the "majority of admins" as morons. User:chocolateboy may be involved, as he too was the subject of name-calling ("self-styled king") and false allegations of misusing his sysop power (when he isn't even one). See Requests for comment/Drbalaji md, User talk:Drbalaji md and Talk:Coca-Cola. I would like mediation so we can sort this out without him resorting to his ridiculous debate tactics (as was evidenced by his argument with User:Raul654). He has not agreed to mediation, as I haven't asked him. If I know him, he'll refuse, based on grounds that he is fighting "dictatorship and bureaucracy". Hopefully somebody can help us resolve this, as I'm tired of being slandered by Drbalaji wherever he goes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Message left at User talk:Drbalaji md asking if Drbalaji md is willing to participate in mediation. Angela. 11:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Request considered closed. Dr. Balaji never replied and has not edited since 19:58, 14 Jul 2004. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 13:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)