Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 10

User:Zestauferov and User:Jayjg
I am currently involved in a dispute with User:Zestauferov about the classification of Nazarene Judaism. At User:Zestauferov's request, User:Ed Poor has locked the page in the form User:Zestauferov prefers. Would it be possible to get mediation on this? Thanks. Jayjg 21:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I've left a message at User talk:Zestauferov. Do you have any preference for a mediator? Angela. 19:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I have none. Ed Poor has involved himself in the dispute at Zestauferov's request, and completely re-written the contentious article, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Jayjg 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I often agree with Ed's hand's on approach; it saves time, and hes very good at listening (er, um, "reading"). I'd like to see his proactive approach be the example for a more approach formalized (see here for a mis-classified proposal). At this point, both of you need to comment on the changes made so far. -SV 00:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they're a good start, and much better than what was there before. Jayjg 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Good. Please alert Zest with a summary of developments to date, and convey our request that he comment on them here. -SV
 * On the 31st Zest created an alternative version of the page in dispute under a very similar name, and put the version of the text he likes in there. Other than that action, he seems to have vanished. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Not vanished, just a very busy man. The problem is that Jayig does not understand the orthodox Jewish system. The information in the article was all accepted by him except for one phrase. He objected to having the Netzarim classified as a subset of orthodox Judaism as they are and prefered to call them Messianic Jews which they are not. There is not a single orthodox Judaic authority which denounces the Netzarim as non-Judaic. I have asked him to name one and he has not. I did a lot of researchon the question and the facts which were presented were accurate. The challenge came from Jayig and the burden is thus sqarely on his shoulders to proove that the orthodox Jewish community denounce the Netzarim as Non-Jews (he claims they are non-jews rather than apostates, but I would even accept a denunciation of the netzarim as apostates as enough basis to re-phrase. However it should not be rephrased as Messianic-Jews because they simply are not.)Zestauferov 04:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Zest. I don't think this is the page for you to make your case, but rather to state whether or not you will accept mediation.  Will you do so? Jayjg 05:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, :-P sure :-)Zestauferov 13:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In addition to littering the Talk: page with ad hominem statements directed at me, Talk:Nazarene_Judaism Zestauferov has now started editing my Talk: page comments ; I'm not sure mediation is a serious enough remedy any more. Jayjg 16:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was simply giving you a reason for the baseless comment you made, and I was also not myself last night. With regards to intersecting comments on a talk page, I find it to be a very effective way of addressing the specific points without them interrupting the flow of other points which are more effective. I did look through the Wikiuette pages you recomended but could not find anything about the topic. Remember though every time we post anything on wiki. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I do not think I have violated any specific point of wikiquette by doing this, and it would make discussions very difficult indeed if we do not do this (the would just ramble on as "cohesive wholes" in a very booring manner ad nauseum.) andyway, I am still open for anyone who wants to mediate between us. Zestauferov 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''Case archived, based on Jayjg's last comments. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 13:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)''

User:RK and User:DanKeshet (and/or User:Zero0000 )
As described on Requests for comment, there has been an on-again, off-again conflict in editing at Israel Shahak, talk:Israel Shahak, Edward Said, and talk:Edward Said, all regarding content regarding Israel Shahak. Not only is the actual content of the article at an impasse (Israel Shahak has been protected for a few days now), but the discussion on the talk page does not appear to be productive. The three people who have been most engaged in this conflict are User:RK, User:DanKeshet (myself), and User:Zero0000. Zero and I have stated that RK is not being intellectually honest, while RK has stated that Zero and I are being anti-Semitic. I have asked RK if he would join me in seeking mediation regarding this dispute, and have asked Zero whether he wishes to participate. DanKeshet 08:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I am willing (with some hesitation). --Zero 10:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I am willing. RK 15:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Do any of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There is a list of committee members at Mediation Committee. (I am not currently available myself). -- sannse (talk) 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe Ed disqualified himself by passing judgment on the issue on the mailing list. Other than that, I'm open.  DanKeshet 22:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan. --Zero 15:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Some of the members of the mediation committee have recused ourselves from participating in this issue. Would all of you agree to having Cimon avaro act as mediator on a trial basis? If so, please sign beside your name.


 * Dan Keshet DanKeshet 06:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Zero  --Zero 02:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * RK RK 19:29, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * How does this affect Cimon's acting as a moderator in our earlier dispute; as far as I can tell that still hasn't started. Jayjg 00:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Cimon checked in after his messages, but he doesnt seem to have responded yet, though he may just be doing it by email. I have emailed him, and asked him to comment here. -SV
 * We will find someone else to mediate between you and Simonides. Danny 02:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have just withdrawn my Request for Mediation, so Cimon can proceed with mediation here. -- Simonides 03:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cimon has disappeared so we have asked Neutrality and Moink to mediate instead. Neutrality has agreed. Please let us know if this is acceptable to you. Danny 02:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. --Zero 03:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help as much as I can. moink 19:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt (and others) and CVA
CVA is refusing to discuss over partisan page (whether Polish partisan forces were major ot not), deleting questions from his talk page, vandalises other users page and simply reverting an article without giving reason. Therefore I feel that we need a mediator who would convince him to start discussing before forcing his POV. Szopen 10:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While I agree that CVA is constantly ignoring the talk pages and Requests for comment/CVA page (he's been informed of several times), I see no way of forcing him to cooperate. CVA now gave up his revert wars over the Partisan and Home Army articles as well as did not vandalize my user page any more. If any of the mods could encourage him to reply to my questions that would be fine. However, I do not want CVA to be banned since, apart from his engagement in revert wars and racist remarks, he is also engaged in valuable edits to other wikipedia articles. What can be done? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, he didn;t gave up. Last time he reverted Partisan page TWICE in August 28th.


 * User:CVA has apparently declined to take part in the mediation process and decided that our information of this mediation is equal to vandalising his talk page (whatever that means). IMO it is a step too far, I withdraw from my earlier objections and request a mediation. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:09, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what you mean - if CVA has refused mediation, then I don't see how mediation is possible. Did you mean Arbitration? Ambi 00:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I (and i guess Halibutt too) believe that Arbitration is final step. We don't want to punish CVA, whatever that means, but we would want him to talk; I believe that he may refused mediation because it was proposed by us (I am Polish and he clearly resent Poles). I hope that if someone else would try to talk him, he could change. He did a lot of valuable work at wikipedia and it may be that this is some temporal insanity or that he is to stubborn to admit that he is in error. However, since he answered that he won't be involved in more revert war (last time 28th August) then it may seem that mediation wouldn't be needed.

However i note that he still is refusing to admit that he was in error and despite being pointed to the sources and various daya he defers them all just because they are Polish. Szopen 07:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I asked BCorr to start a mediation and he did contact CVA. The latter replied quite extensively on his talk page here. CVA declared that We have no time or great interest in resurrecting old matters and ask you please advise Halibutt and his confederates to ignore us as we have nothing further to discuss. We will of course reciprocate. Hopefully a simple solution. which could be understood that he won't engage in further revert wars at the Partisan page. This also means that he won't take part in mediation and the RfC process, but that's fine with me as long as he (they?) stays civilized. I still demand apologies for his racist remarks, but that's another thing and perhaps we could settle that after BCorr returns from his vacations in Vermont. I hope no mediation committee will be needed and that CVA would understand that he was wrong.


 * I suggest we left this mediation request here until the matter is resolved. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:01, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have archived this as the main part of the dispute has been resolved it seems. I will contact CVA personally to pursue the apology request. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen
I am asking for mediation on this user, I feel that his sole purpose is to insert POV material into articles, and he has started an edit war over Supply-side economics. Stirling Newberry 12:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have left a message for Terjepetersen on his talk page to see if he is willing to accept mediation. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * TERJE (2004-07-26):Is this process still active. Unfortuantely I completely missed the entire process because my own talk page was not on my watch list. That is now rectified. Is mediation process opened or closed or what?


 * There hasn't been any mediation since both people have to agree. Since you are willing to participate, please reply and say if you have any preferences as to the mediator. There is a list of committee members at Mediation Committee. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am happy for Bcorr to mediate. Regards, Terje. 10:45, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Stirling Newberry has also agreed on my talk page. I have been away, but now that I'm back I will post a proposal for moving forward on this matter within a day. many thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Next steps for User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen
Thank you both for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict. I propose that I create a topic (thread) on the mediation message board, and if there is no objection, I will get things going tomorrow. You can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have created the topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board here. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Adraeus and User:Nunh-huh
Request mediation with Nunh-huh regarding his posting of nonfactual information, false allegations of vandalism, and harassment practices on User_talk:Adraeus and Talk:Evolutionary_creationism. Adraeus 21:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Declined. No intermediate steps in dispute resolution have been taken, including requesting input from third parties or polling. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You can't decline mediation. You're the subject of the request. Adraeus 21:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, mediation tends only to take place if both parties can agree to the request. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:08, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

User:Kizzle and User:Rex071404
Hi, I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but I am requesting mediation in the conflict at Texans for Truth.The page became protected about a week ago at the behest of User:Rex071404 and his complaints that the page was biased. I have worked tirelessly for Rex to specifically state what he thinks about the article is biased, but he vehemently refuses to address any particulars in the article.

When first asked when he would be satisfied with the current page, he replied:

"I am satisfied when they are NPOV - or at minimum - not outrageous anti-Bush screeds." In addition,

"The whole thing stinks. I am going to attempt to re-write as much as I can over time, until it no longer does stink."

"The entire article reeks of anti-Bush POV and also as far as I am concerned, needs a full re-write from top to bottom."

Yet the other editors and myself have explicitly asked Rex 15 times to provide passages/quotations/line numbers, or SPECIFIC examples of this bias, and to no avail except that he is planning on editing the page when it becomes unprotected.

The main portion of this dialogue can be found here and here. Thanks :) --kizzle 18:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Rex071404 has accused me of being a sockpuppet and now uses quotes around my nickname in order to harass me about this accusation. Notice that he does not use these quotes for any other user but me. I asked him to specifically state who he thought I was a sockpuppet to, but he refuses and is merely content to harass me by not referring to me as Kizzle but derogatorily as "Kizzle". --kizzle 18:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to upgrade this complaint, as Rex has not ceased using quotations around my name in order to harass me, especially in this example.--kizzle 06:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Provided that this dialog does not begin by presuming that "Kizzle"'s above statement is accurate or true, I accept mediation. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 21:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quick question for the mediator who responds... are outside comments encouraged in mediations or is dialog restricted to the two parties involved --kizzle 23:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) I'll do this myself.

''Archived as of 18:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) because the disputants are working things out on their own. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;''

User:Vbs and User:PedroPVZ
i would like to request mediation between me (vbs) and PedroPVZ on the articles related to the portuguese language, more specifically the portuguese language (talk) and Brazilian Portuguese (talk) at the moment. basically, PedroPVZ has possessed every single article related to the portuguese language and will not allow anyone modify them. this problem has been going on for months. earlier on, he would simply revert anything that didn't please him and claim it was "POV" (example here). back then i had decided myself not to interfere but had always kept a look at what was going on. at some point later, i ended up exploding and pointed out was he was doing. as i was getting very stressed and couldn't see any progress, i left wikipedia for a couple of months. i came back a few days ago and noticed things were actually getting worse. as i didn't know what to do, i  posted more comments about his actions hoping for any help and then tried to edit the articles unsuccessfully as PedroPVZ reverted them. it seems that after what i had said earlier, PedroPVZ's "POV" reverts became so obvious that he started doing something more serious. he now reverts/deletes edits he doesn't like and claim they are "vandalism" (example here, it's good to note in this example that he had already made unrelated edits to the article and only a good 3 hours later did he decide to come back and completely revert it as "vandalism"). as nothing i tried doing to solve this problem seemed to work, i went through the help articles and finally got here. the main thing is, PedroPVZ doesn't like the idea of brazilian portuguese and european portuguese being different, and whenever someone adds any info that could prove anything to be different, he simply deletes it instantly so nobody else can see it. i have pointed many references on the internet opposing many of his claims and proving much of what i wrote (i didn't even write much really, as edit wars were obvious forseen), but he simply ignores all of them and calls them "websites in english trying to cheat non-natives", while he doesn't back up any of his claims and just repeats that his claims are "real linguistic works" and that the rest is "non-sence". Vbs 10:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * i must add that right now PedroPVZ has even started an edit war over a "disputed" template i had added. Vbs 15:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * actually someone else intervened before i even noticed, which makes me feel better. i hope PedroPVZ is not gonna remove the "disputed" template again. Vbs 16:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Declined in this edit. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * is it just as simple as that? if so what can be done to resolve this situation? PedroPVZ even refuses to read whatever i add to the talk page calls me "illeterate" and says i've got "Schizofrennya", etc. and i am definately not the first one to have problems with him, Portcult, who is an american married to a brazilian, lived in brazil for many years and now lives in portugal, used to have many disagreements with PedroPVZ, but left wikipedia since september 2003. which is quite understandable, with PedroPVZ's actions, and even calling him an "old decrepit" ("velho caduco", link here). Leandrod (talk) (someone i myself had a disagreement with once) also finds PedroPVZ "arrogant" with his possessive reverts: "Não sou a primeira pessoa a reclamar da sua arrogância em remover informações publicadas por outros" trans. -> "i'm not the first one to complain of your arrogance in removing info added by others". i'm only the first one to try and stop him, and i wish someone had a really detailed look at the situation. also, whenever someone is looking at his reverts i wish they looked in detail at the changes rather than just trusted PedroPVZ's "summary" which many times is simply not true. Vbs 09:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner and User:orthogonal
The bulk of my issue with orthogonal is well summed up at Requests for comment/orthogonal. But, as that procedure has a number of rules and procedures, it's proving to be a format that is not well-suited to resolving a dispute that is largely based around a differing opinion of how rules should be treated. I think mediation might provide that. Snowspinner 16:27, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you both accept, do either of you have any preferences as to a mediator? Ambi 01:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask for you, actually, but orthogonal has suggested he will not accept on a couple of pages, I fear. :( Snowspinner 01:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think I was on decent terms with both of you, but considering my involvement so far, it'd be improper for me to mediate. Take your pick from the list at Mediation Committee, and I'll see if they're available. Ambi 04:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My next choice would be Angela. Snowspinner 03:36, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that Angela has recused herself on my talk page. Please choose another mediator (oe mediators) that you feel would be acceptable. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Both Mediators Snowspinner has nominated have a previous involvement in the dispute at hand (and both to their credit recused themselves). I think the need for a Mediator who has not already formed an opinion of any element of the dispute at hand is obvious.  -- orthogonal 18:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * By all means propose one if you intend to accept the mediation request. Snowspinner 22:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept Mediation by Danny or Anthere but only if we can do this quickly; for personal reasons I'm extremely busy right now. So I'd ask that Snowspinner open mediation with a full list of whatever points he wishes to discuss, so that this doesn't drag out, and that further discussion be limited to disputes noted on that list. -- orthogonal 10:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If it comes to it, I'd prefer Danny, but if you have anyone else you'd be willing to go with, I admit, though if he is, as I'm somewhat afraid he might be, still pissed at me for the overstrong statement I made regarding Michael's ban, I ask that Danny decline the case, obviously. Snowspinner 16:04, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm finding your answer unclear; perhaps that is because my (implied) question is unclear. So I will try to ask very clear questions:
 * Are you willing to open mediation with a full list of your complaints, limiting further discussion to items on that list, and any similar list I might come up with? (My purpose here is to not have a mediation where, as we make progress, suddenly a new complaint is thrown into the mix, and to hold down the total time required to as short a period as possible.)
 * Yes, though I will not make said list until we have a mediator. Also, I would ask a list of your complaints about my behavior as well - assuming that you do have some complaints about my behavior. Snowspinner 04:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to accept Anthere as Mediator?
 * No. Snowspinner 04:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner does not appreciate me ;-) It would not be a good idea.
 * Are you willing to accept Danny as Mediator?
 * If Danny thinks that he can be unbiased towards me, then yes. Snowspinner 04:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * -- orthogonal 03:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept the case. Can we start it tomorrow? Danny 00:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Point me to where and I'll start on the list of issues. Snowspinner 17:26, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am really glad of this. SweetLittleFluffyThing

''Archived on 16:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) as this is now being considered at Requests for arbitration -- after the mediation was inactive due to lack of action by the disputants. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;''

VeryVerily and CK
Hi, I am a new Wikipedian so please forgive me if I've made any rookie mistakes with this request.

VV and I seem to be at loggerheads over the article PNAC. We have talked things over in some depth at the bottom of the discussion page, but our differences are just turning into an edit war and I really think a neutral observer could be very helpful in making some progress here. Thanks. CK 01:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Decline. Premature.  And waste of time. V V  04:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Antonio Fun Martin" and User:Tverbeek
About Eroticism in film and the personal war ensued between both parties thereafter. "Antonio Cant Buy Me Love Martin"


 * I just stumbled across this, from seeing that it was one of the "What links here" pages for the page we disagree about. I don't have any problem with mediation, though I think calling it a "personal war" between us is a bit hyperbolic. My only concern is that Antonio describes himself as part of the Wikipedia elite, so I'm not sure how neutral a mediator we're going to get. Tverbeek 15:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

''Since this is now listed on requests for comment, this request will be archived. It can be restored if that process does not lead to resolution. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)''

Neutrality and libel about Jehovah's Witnesses
In this article, many people insist that Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) are non-Christians and controversy based on their faith, but I think this is a libel to JWs, because they say they are Christians. (See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses) In this case,


 * Should we precede nuetrality rather than libel?
 * Should JWs controvert what is a Christianity with those who think JWs is non-Christians like Mormonism_and_Christianity?
 * Should we decide by majority even if it is libel?

Please answer and mediate. Rantaro 05:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And please mediate with Wesley.Rantaro 00:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have left a response on the Talk page Rantaro mentioned. -- llywrch 05:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wesley has declined mediation on this issue with Rantaro. His explanation is as follows:


 * Llywrch, I think that Rantaro requested mediation because it was his experience in the Japanese Wikipedia that JW's were banned by administrators who disagreed with them, and he saw that I was an administrator who was disagreeing with him. As I have no intention of banning anyone, I don't see any need for a formal mediation process at this time. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if other reasons are put forward though.

If this is the entire point of conflict, then I consider this matter resolved. -- llywrch 18:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Shorne and Fred Bauder
User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. I know he must agree to mediate and set aside time for mediating, but the destructive effect of his constant edit warring mandates that some action be taken. Fred Bauder 21:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Untrue. The evidence can be seen at the relevant talk pages and elsewhere. Furthermore, I absolutely refuse any action whatsoever against me while the matter of VeryVerily, which the mediators and the arbitrators have ignored for two days despite lengthy discussion by me and others, has been addressed. I note as well that user Fred Bauder initiated this complaint as a reaction to mine against his ally VeryVerily. (For proof, see my request for mediation.) Such tendentious behaviour is unbecoming of an arbitrator. Shorne 22:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration for a continuation of this discussion. Shorne 23:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Xed and Jayjg
User Jayjg, in relation to the WP:Bias project, has claimed that I "don't oppose systemic bias, you're just looking for a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism." (from User_talk:Jayjg). As well as being blatantly untrue, it belittles all the effort I, and others, have put into the project. Jayjg has also claimed that the project grew out of "attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks." (from User_talk:Jayjg). He has provided no evidence for either assertion, even after I requested this EIGHT times. Instead, he ignores the question, or cites irrelevant information. I request a full apology. The rules broken include No personal attacks, Civility, and Assume good faith. My preferred mediator is User:Ed_Poor --- Xed 11:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm rather bemused by this request. Xed has been a consistent and persistent violater of these rules (and other Wikipedia norms) since his first days here on Wikipedia, primarily with me, but with many other editors as well.  In fact, his behaviour earned him a one-week ban within three weeks or so of joining Wikipedia, and it has seen little improvement since; thus it is rather startling that he would request mediation in an area in which his behaviour has been so deficient.  Nevertheless  I welcome mediation with Xed, as I have been hoping to find some way short of arbitration of getting him to respect Wikipedia norms, which he has heretofore violated with seeming relish and abandon.   As a simple example, he recently created a highly visible, deep red "Rogue admin" list on the top of his user page, and included me and two other admins on that list, one of whom had only become an admin hours before, and had not even had a chance to exercise his admin powers.  Requests from other editors to remove the list were to no avail, though Xed did remove it a day or so after requesting mediation with me. Regarding mediators, while I like Ed Poor, whose good-will and desire to defuse conflict is second to none, I'm a little concerned that his conciliatory approach might not take Xed's violations seriously enough.  I don't know much about Ambi, Xed's initial choice, but I have no objection to her as a mediator, if she is willing to take on this role. Jayjg 02:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Note refusal to deal with the issues raised in my request. - Xed 04:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm fairly sure any mediation will deal with your issues, don't you think? Otherwise what would be the point of asking for mediation? Jayjg 08:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm ready. - Xed 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't do mediation on the Requests for mediation page. If you both choose me as Mediator, I would rather use private e-mail.
 * 2) All my mediations have succeeded in the past, and I expect that this will, too. How about it? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm ready as well, Ed, and I wish us all luck. :-) Jayjg 22:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Since both parties having agreed to accept me as their Mediator, I request that everyone avoid commenting publicly on this matter until Mediation is concluded. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:One Salient Oversight and User:Zen-master at Hubbert Peak
I would like to ask for formal mediation between myself (OSO) and User:Zen-master regarding this topic. I am personally happy for anyone to come along and help, though it would be really good if someone with knowledge of the subject can step in. Hubbert Peak is an equation that is used to determine the amount of time before oil levels peak. It is currently a controversial subject because of high oil prices and a perception among many people that oil is beginning to run out.

My contribution to the subject is in regards to the Athabasca Tar Sands, which is a region of Alberta, Canada, where approximately one-third of the world's petroleum supplies exist. For many years oil companies have been talking about exploiting this resource as a way of producing more oil for world consumption. If Hubbert's peak if correct and we are beginning to run out of oil, then the oil in the tar sands should become viable for use.

User:Zen-master, however, removed my editing of the article and has steadfastly refused to include the information in the article. He does not believe my assertion that the tar sands actually have an impact of the article. I have given him ample external links as a way of proving my argument but he appears to have ignored them. Go to Talk:Hubbert Peak for all the sordid details.

The problem has been inflamed somewhat by a mistake I made early in the piece when I decided that Zen-master was actually a friend of mine who is mad about Hubbert's peak and who was recently introduced to Wikipedia by myself. Therefore some of my early remarks were, how shall I say? Intemperate. When I rang my friend and found out that it wasn't him I made an apology in the discussion.

I believe that I have (apart from the aforementioned intemperance) treated Zen-master with respect and attempted to work together to solve the problem. This has not worked as the talk page will show. The way Zen-master works appears similar to trolling.

Zen-master also logs on as 207.172.83.26 One Salient Oversight 07:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe OSO has mischaracterized the Hubbert Peak/Peak Oil controversy a number of different ways and his facts need checking. I welcome all third parties.
 * Oil reserves in Athabasca are best considered an oil deposit, i.e. a non-proven oil reserve. There is no consensus even among the oil industry that extracting a significant percentage of the world's oil from tar sands is technically feasable, especially after you factor in the order of magnitude greater environmental impact.  Athabasca currently produces .1463% of the world's oil, I consider this non-noteworthy.
 * The controversy began with his edit -- is it wikipedia policy to begin the discussion of a controversial topic before or after controversial content is posted to an article?
 * OSO also fails to mention the fact that he agreed to my removal of his edit as the starting point for discussion.
 * The only person that has been "steadfast" is OSO in his belief that it should be his way or else. I've proposed various ways of reformatting the page.
 * A one sentence mention of Athabasca in a different section on the Hubbert Peak page that touches on both the promising potential of extracting a significant portion of the huge tar sands field, and, the skeptical nature of that happening given the current limited rate of production should be a fair compromise. A mention larger than that would have to mention the larger enrvironmental impact of tar sands oil production I believe, making it beyond the point of being relevant or appropriate on the Hubbert Peak page.  That is why a link to the Athabasca page from Hubbert Peak may make the most sense regardless.
 * OSO seems to believe additional oil from Athabasca nullifies the implications or effects of peak oil theory, when in reality it would only delay it. There can be no disagreement that there is ultimately a finite oil reserve on planet earth.  Absent a suitable [non oil] replacement the effects of oil depletion on society would be similiar were depletion to happen now or in 10 years or after all the oil in Athabasca is gone.
 * He morphed a disagreement about the when of peak oil into a disagreement on the implications, there can be no disagreement on the implications. The section that describes the "here is what happens if we were to run out of oil" should not include info on potential non-conventional sources of oil that might delay running out of oil (there is already a section for that on the page).
 * From the beginning OSO has attempted to discredit my argument not by refuting the points of my argument but by claiming I am a newbie or now a troll. This is considered respectful by OSO?
 * The one (and currently only) third party poster on the Hubbert Peak talk page commented that OSO's initial controversial edit of the Hubbert Peak page did sound like oil company PR.
 * Zen Master 12:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One thing that Zen and I would agree upon, people, is that we need someone quick. We may even have move straight to abritration. One Salient Oversight 12:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As a mostly neutral third party, I think this request for mediation is premature. The dispute is still being discussed by the two parties and other prerequisite dispute resolution has not yet taken place. I highly recommend delaying mediation and arbitration until these other avenues have been exhausted. I offered to act as a third party, to which both parties agreed, but One Salient Oversight continued to post a mediation request regardless.


 * Regarding OSO's statement, "we need someone quick," he will likely find that mediation and arbitration are usually painfully slow processes; all the more reason to settle the dispute without their aid and using them only as a last resort. GuloGuloGulo 19:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, no one has come along to help. The Hubbert Peak article is Google's no. 7 or no. 8 hit but our dispute doesn't seem close to being resolved. I'm giving up on the whole thing and letting the article ride without the content that I think is important. I would really have liked a third party - someone with some science background - come in and look at what we two were arguing about and make a dispassionate and logical decision... one that I would have accepted even if it went against me.


 * I am no longer going to participate in this debate, It tires me and it makes me not want to come to Wikipedia. I would really appreciate it if some people with a science background have a look at the dispute at hand and makes a decision for me. I'll be honest though - I don't think it will happen. It would be nice, though, if someone would surprise me and make the effort.


 * One Salient Oversight 12:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One Salient Oversight turned down mediation; "I am no longer going to participate in this debate...". See Archive 10
 * I turned down nothing. No one came to mediate. That's my problem. One Salient Oversight 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the point of arbitration is not just to decide, but to help everyone involved reach consensus? Mediation is the step before arbitration, we passed over that.  You are always welcome on the Hubbert Peak page OSO, I appreciate your opinion. Zen Master 03:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Chuck F and User:Rhobite
Chuck F also edits from:
 * (Chuck F | talk | contributions)
 * (203.112.19.195 | talk | contributions)
 * (210.142.29.125 | talk | contributions)

Chuck has been removing quite a bit of information from libertarian-related articles. He was the subject of an RFC Requests for comment/Chuck F but continues to participate in revert wars. A new problem has also come along: starting with User:Reithy, a string of new users have come along for the sole purpose of fighting with Chuck. Chuck agreed to mediation but requested that these users not participate in mediation, and I agree: They are trolls and they should not be a part of this. They deserve to be disciplined, but separately from this dispute. If the mediators feel they should be included, please communicate this to Chuck.

I'd like to help Chuck agree to behave on articles such as Michael Badnarik, United States Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, and General Motors. I would like him to explain why he feels large-scale deletions are the proper response to perceived POV issues. Chuck's M.O. is to delete whole sections, and then gradually reduce the scope of his deletions until they are accepted through attrition. He started by deleting entire parts of Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil, then through a tedious process, agreed to include most of what he originally deleted. For the purpose of this mediation, I'd like to use the e-mail address rhobite at gmail dot com. Rhobite 19:48, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * The only info I've removed from Libertarian-related articles is info added in by user:Reithy and his other accounts(he seems to create a new account per day, to make it seem like there is concensus against my edits in the history page and to give himself no traceable history(besides very small edits he does to make it not look like another of his accounts).


 * I would also like to add that Requests for comment/Reithy has about 15 more singatures then mine, and he's been causing a large amount more of problems then me. His accounts are: User:Chuckschneider User:Schweppes42 User:144.132.89.151 user:Guido1970 user:ReithySockPuppet User:Lukewilson user:CorporalPunishment and user:MunchieRonnie (all of these have been created withen the past week).


 * The first point to decide is who should be your mediator. There is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee.  Do either of you have any preferences?  Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Mostly correct Chuck, but to my knowledge you made this questionable edit before any Reithy involvement: . And of course, you did abuse Libertarianism and several corporate articles before Reithy showed up. I agree about the sockpuppets and ideally I would like these users disciplined. But excepting Reithy, most of their content edits are valid, and I would have made them myself. I have no problem with any of the listed mediators. Rhobite 20:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with any of the moderators... Libertarniasm - that was in agreement with every other editor on the page, about a returning vandal.. and the edit that you mention,


 * I explained it on the talk page, quoting myself: The whole Entire notion of it being a private entity is what the lawsuit(and the order to show cause) was about... that the Cpd is using public funds and public areas for private purposes. CPD argues that they are a non-for-profit non-partisan donations to them are tax-deductabile. The Libertarian party is challanging that view and calling them a private entity for partisin purposes using tax-payer funds. Calling them a private misleads you to belive that they weren't using public funds and public spaces for thier acitvities"


 * I am willing to mediate if that is acceptable to you both. If it is, the next decision is the format - whether we discuss issues on a page on Wikipedia, on the mediation bulletin boards, via email or in some other way.  I firmly believe that mediation is best carried out in private, and this would be a condition of my mediating for you.  This would probably mean email or the bulletin board (the board can be set up to contain a private area).  So perhaps you could both let me know whether you agree to me as mediator and, if so, what format you prefer. -- sannse (talk) 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for volunteering. E-mail or the board would be fine with me. IRC may be expeditious, I don't know if that's allowed. Rhobite 23:16, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * board e-mail irc or just about anything els is fine with me, whatever you want Sannse since your the mediatator person. Chuck F 12:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both. I suggest we start with email. IRC is available if we need it, but I find that email is a good starting place for clear communication. My email address is sannse (a) tiscali.co.uk

Let's start with you both mailing me with a description of the problem as you each see it and a description of what you want to get out of this mediation.

Please both read Confidentiality during mediation before mailing. This sets out the general terms of confidentiality I work to. Please let me know if you are happy with this or if anything there is unclear.

Mediation is often not a quick process. I will reply as quickly as I can to all mail, but be prepared for this to take a while. But with both of you obviously willing to talk that's a great place to start. -- sannse (talk) 18:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation with Chuck F and Rhobite has ended. We did not come to any agreement -- sannse (talk) 11:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:AlexR and User:AWilliamson regarding Cross-dressing
Mr. Williamson has, since the 2nd of October, tried first anonymously to remove Joan of Arc completely from the article (where she was listed as an example of cross-dressing), he only commented on this edits after I had the article locked so he had to. Ever since the article has been unlocked, and after he realised that she would not be removed from the article, he has constantly tried to push his POV that Joan cross-dressed out of pure necessity, not because of any reasons he describes as "deviant". (The latter not being exactly neutral, either). The article previously stated explicitly that no reason could be given for historical persons (see the article and the debate for details). Already much of the old content on Joan has been replaced by him with content that support his POV, but still he strives to remove any last remnant of reason. I tried for two weeks now to make him see what the debate, from my side, was about, and I have gotten pretty insulting answers that were besides the point, and constant misrepresentation of my statements, at one time he even completely misrepresented a completely unrelated debate I had participated in (on Talk:Joan of Arc (cross-dressing), then a VfD debate). I had been happy if, instead of just pushing his POV, Mr. Williamson had actually tried to contribute something without pushing his POV so much. Also, others have weighted in, trying to bring him there, too. However, he only sees what he wants to seen, and he certainly does not want to see anything critical of him and his POV. Now that he starts accusing me of "vandalism", because I reverted his POV removal of one sentence twice, I have given up to believe that any meaningfull debate between us can take place, an RfC did not help, either, and I therefore request mediation. -- AlexR 11:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would ask the mediator to please look at the debate itself rather than the above characterization of it, which - as I think the others will confirm - has little in common with the situation.
 * As a brief reply, I will merely say the following: I am a historian who got involved with Wikipedia after someone posted a message to an academic list, essentially noting that there was a need for historians to correct errors in Wikipedia articles. I quickly found out why there are such errors in these articles: although I generally had the support and help from the other people in the Cross-dressing debate - Stbalbach, Benc, Fire Star (the last two of whom are admins) were helpful and supportive - AlexR has been another story, repeatedly claiming that citing the historical evidence is allegedly "POV". To address some of the claims he made above in his mediation request, I would point out that if the mediator examines the debate, it will be seen that: 1) I have never used the word "deviant", or anything similar, to describe transgendered behavior during the debate  -  AlexR invented that just now for inclusion in the above mediation request. 2) It's interesting to see him imply that the others in the debate opposed me, given that he had previously accused people like Fire Star of being too supportive of my position rather than vice-versa; and in his latest post to that debate he essentially labeled all of them "clueless" for not taking his position. You can see from the debate that I have not argued with any of these other people. 3) The current version which I am supporting was added by the admin Fire Star, not by myself (as was alleged above), and Fire Star put it in as an attempted compromise. 4) I have in fact repeatedly addressed AlexR's arguments concerning the issue of "POV", such as my posts on Oct 11th, 12th, 18th, etc. 5) I have never used insults. I'll let the mediator judge whether some of AlexR's own comments during the debate would qualify as such - he's already been warned at least once about personal attacks. 6) If you look at previous arguments he's been involved in, such as in "List of transgendered people" and "Cisgender", etc, you will find much the same pattern of behavior that he has exhibited in this debate. 7) The mistakes on my part (especially early in the process) which he is alluding to were the result of being new to Wikipedia and should not be cited against me.
 * In any event, my current position - as you can see from the debate - is that we should go with the third-party compromise added by Fire Star during a previous attempt to finally resolve this. I would submit that this is not an unreasonable or extreme position to take, and the mediation process could be over very quickly by adopting this solution. AWilliamson 03:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify a bit, I was the one who actually used the word deviant, but as a third person reporter of just one public perception of the activity in question and only on the article's talk page. As I was able to have meaningful, polite conversations with both AlexR and AWilliamson (even though I came into the debate at the latter's request), I believe that it will eventually be possible for them to agree on an article which will accurately represent both of their contributions to their satisfaction. My impression is that neither one feels that they are actually being listened to by the other, and perhaps the mediation process will help them resolve that issue. Fire Star 04:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed some of my comments may have been somewhat sharp, but at least I have not constantly misrepresenting this and other debates just to avoid answering the questions at hand. I might also mention that, since I work mostly on articles regarding transgender matters, I happen to be all to familiar with editors who want the articles to conform more to their prejudices, but articles are not written by popular vote, but should represent facts, no matter how many people think otherwise. And with these matters, it tends to be quite many people who have quite big misconceptions about them and the people they pertain. And Mr. Williamson demanded, each and every time an edit he liked, that I should view this edit as a "compromise" which I should accept, and it did not matter at all how many factual errors and/or misconceptions that edit introduced, and started another rant against me when I did not. Somewho he has a funny idea of what a compromise is, not to mention that there are no compromises when it comes to facts. But facts is nothing he wants to hear about, and if necessary, twisting them is fine with him, too. I really tried to make him see reason, but he constantly refused to do so. Firestarters conclusion, that I feel like I am not exactly being listened too, is, as I already stated, most certainly correct. Funny though, that is one of the bits on the talk page Mr Williamson never bothered repying to - not even with his now-famous "see my comments above/below" (which sometimes were and sometimes were not quite there).
 * Also, while indeed Mr. Williamson did not use the word deviant, he used phrases like ""cross-dresser" in the sense that this page implies" (the page at that time stating nothing but "A cross-dresser ... is any person who wears the clothing of the opposite gender, for any reason"). Close enough. -- AlexR 09:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I believe I already responded to the points which AlexR has again repeated above, and I can only imagine that he knows better. But in any event, the mediator can get a good idea of how this process has gone by comparing the above description to the actual discussion.  AWilliamson 00:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Since this debate is going the way all previous "debates" have gone, that is nowhere, and fast, I would really appreciate if a mediator did step in - because this has become so annoying. -- AlexR 00:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll give it another day or two, then find another solution. AWilliamson 00:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to act as a mediator here, if neither party objects to my presence. Ambi 03:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections. AWilliamson 00:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Neither have I - now that's in the right place, too ;-) -- AlexR 03:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation with User:AlexR and User:AWilliamson has ended. We did not come to any agreement -- sannse (talk) 01:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)