Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 12

Theresa Knott
I request assistance with regard to the threatening and near obsessional approach from this person towards me. It is quite clear that there is a level of hostility that is neither good for Wikipedia nor healthy for the person herself. I am concerned that this situation is about to spiral out of control to the detriment of all. - Robert the Bruce 22:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Can anyone comment on the edits by Rudi Dierick to that page? He is posting some quotes but not giving the source. I am not saying he is wrong (he might be right), but I want to see the source and direct quotes. He hasn't provided any. I also noticed some other quotes on the page but sources are not given. This doesn't make any sense OneGuy 15:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:RickK
RickK banned a user, solely over an edit dispute at Larry Sanger. The three-reverts rule did not apply, vandalism was clearly not occurring. Wert


 * Have you tried discussion on this issue with other users at Requests for comment? If so, please leave a link here to the discussion.  Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(note: Wert appears to have left Wikipedia -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Users Ato and RaffiKojian regarding History of Turkey article
User:RaffiKojian and I (User:Ato) are engaged in a revert war (now ceased thanks to User:AndyL's protection of the page, per my request) in History of Turkey article. Raffi wants to make a reference to Armenian Genocide article in this article, and formulates it in a way that disregards the dispute surrounding this issue. I am opposing this on two grounds: 1) At this level of detail in the article this reference makes it imbalanced. We neglect a lot of important parts of prerepublic history of Turkey, this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other events 2) The way Raffi wants it to be included: "Ottoman Empire carried out Armenian Genocide", which incidentally is the way it is included in the protected article, does not mention the context in which the referred events happened and disregards the majority of Turkish population's view, namely that these events do not deserve to be called genocide. I would like to point out that this is not the same as denying the deaths, or the order of deportation etc. so saying something like "Turkey denies it happened" gives quite a wrong impression, a detailed explanation is necessary if a reference will be made. I have taken a break from editing the article and asked for third party opinion, in particular from User:Jerzy. He responded but Raffi and I still failed to come to an agreement. I proposed a comprimise: leaving the article in a form which makes both of us unhappy (I object to the reference at this level of detail, Raffi objects to the form of the reference) and work on a draft (see: talk:History of Turkey/Draft), which Raffi has so far ignored. I asked Raffi to ask for mediation together, but he did not respond (even though he was swiftly reverting my changes), so I am asking for mediation by myself. If anybody wants to discuss this issue, I would be happy to provide more details. Even if you are not a mediator or do not want to mediate but has things to say, please feel free to leave messages on my talk page, e.g., for pointing out what could have I done differently and why. at0 21:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice Ato's message to me about mediation on the 12th. No matter, I agree on the request for mediation. I feel like my whole exchange with Ato has been a waste, despite my attempts for discussion and compromise. I went along with his request not to include it in the Turkey article at all. I went along with his request for user Jerzy to give his thoughts on whether it belonged on the History of Turkey page at all (Jerzy thought definitely so). I replied to why the wording he was reverting to was completely false and he ignored my explanations, comments on that. So I feel like all I can agree with on this is that we need a third party to step in here. His unilateral decision to create a new draft is fine, but I am just watching it to see how it develops. I certainly have the feeling anything I wrote on there would be removed, just like before. I would be happy to have Jerzy write the Armenian Genocide reference. To say that he was did not like the one small sentence genocide reference because it was so prominent in a short article seems ridiculous to me. First it is so brief, primarily serving as a link. Second it is natural for an article to develop in one place then another. Third, I think in general when he says things like "this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other", it just shows his attitude that the genocide was not a big deal. Not important enough to warrant space. Then he goes on after saying it takes up too much space, that there should be more background/explanation. His denial that it was genocide is even one thing, but his attempt to characterize this as "Armenian view vs. Turkish" even is not a fair one. Virtually serious scholars not getting funding from the Turkish government - including a number of Turkish scholars agree it was genocide. It is a truth vs. the Turkish Government battle, and the massive efforts of Turkey to prevent discussion and censor the suject in Turkey that have led to this. Anyway - I feel like there is no way I can convince Ato with facts when trying to find proper wording, so let me know what is needed from me on mediation. --RaffiKojian 03:40, 18 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 would welcome it. Where should we discuss this issue? You may want to leave a message on Raffi's talk page and/or History of Turkey article's talk page. I will copy this message to your talk page as well. at0 21:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * An update: Ambi was waiting for a reply from RaffiKojianto say whether she was acceptable as a mediator in this issue, but it seems that he missed this and, unfortunately, in the interim Ambi has become unavailable. So we need to know what the current situation is, and whether mediation is still needed.  If so we can find another mediator willing to help.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 11:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. I no longer want to discuss this issue. I do not think it will lead anywhere, and will be simply a waste of time for me. I appreciate the efforts of everyone (including Raffi) regarding this. My apologies for wasting other people's time. at0 22:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Boraczek and Shorne
Mediation requested with Boraczek. He obviously doesn't understand, despite valiant efforts by me and others to explain things to him in simple terms, that these articles are supposed to be NPOV, that facts are needed rather than opinions, and that he cannot destroy documented statements and replace them with opinions or even factually incorrect information. Discussion with him borders on the impossible: he refuses to answer direct questions, preferring instead to push his POV over and over à la VeryVerily. See, for example, Joseph Stalin, Kulak, Collectivisation in the USSR, Ludo Martens, Free world, Great Purge, and Communism, just to name seven, and their associated talk pages.

Lately Boraczek has also taken to following me around and spitefully reverting changes to articles that he never would have seen had I not edited them. See, for example, Weathermen and Boricua Popular Army.

I have very little confidence that mediation with this person will succeed, but let's give it a try anyway. Shorne 10:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to join the request for mediation, because I find Shorne's behavior unacceptable and I think his current attitude makes reaching a consensus impossible. I hope this mediation helps. Boraczek 10:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll volunteer to mediate here, if both parties can agree to having me as a mediator. We can go about this in several ways - as a subpage here, via e-mail, via a real-time discussion as would be done with IRC or via IM, or the old mediation board. I have no preference as to which of these is used. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:50, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * Thank you, grunt. I am glad you volunteered to mediate. As for the method, I would like to avoid a real-time discussion, because I am not a native speaker of English and sometimes I lack a word or phrase to clearly and precisely express my thoughts. So it will be easier for me if I can think for a while or look something up in a dictionary. I will be glad to know Shorne's preferences. Boraczek 17:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to you as mediator and am willing to accept your kind offer if it is acceptable to Boraczek and if you have no significant predisposition to either party. I want the whole thing to be done on Wikipedia, in public, where the evidence will endure in a form that cannot later be denied. Shorne 17:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * All right with me. Boraczek 17:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So be it; let's get this started then. I have created a subpage here where the proceedings will take place. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

===Users Adraeus, FeloniousMonk, Bryan, Andre vs. Sam Spade, Shane, 20040302, Nat Krause===

There is (once more) a dispute arising at Talk:Atheism. I am satisfied that multiple POVs should brought into the article, but some regulars such as Adraeus and Bryan et al. are particularly interested in brow-beating the issue. Particularly, I find remarks such as "Sorry, bub. You're wrong." particularly intolerant of POVs that differ from their author. Last time the issue was raised, there was just one voice (Sam Spade in a sockpuppet) who disagreed with them, and his viewpoint was considered solitary. Now there is a multiplicity of views and arguments, that appear to be split on the issue of whether or not atheism/theism is an exclusive dichotomy. My position regarding the article is that both POV (exclusive/non-exclusive) are legitimate views, but I have been told by Atreus "If you edit the article to suit your view, I'll consider your edit vandalism and act appropriately." Help! (20040302 07:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC))


 * This appears to me to be a dispute on facts, not a NPOV dispute or a personal dispute that might respond to mediation. The solution here is to prove your case, or accept that the other side have proved their case.  The "point of view" that black is white has no place in an article, and no amount of mediation will change that - in this case one side or the other is right, I don't feel this is a matter of point of view.  Perhaps another mediator will see a way to help in this situation but for now I (and the other mediator I discussed this with) feel this is not an area we can help in. -- sannse (talk) 10:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How about all the incivility and personal attacks going on on this page? You can help w that, can't you? The main problem is personality conflict, not the facts of the matter (which are suprisingly simple). Sam [Spade] 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So your definition of incivility does not cover sending editors from Talk:Atheism vulgar, insulting emails like the one you sent me Thursday through the wikipedia email system? Please go easy on the self-righteous indignation here, the irony and hypocrisy are a bit much considering your personal attacks in edit summaries and abusive emails. I direct anyone interested in reading further to my Talk page.--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, a personality conflict between whom? At the moment this is presented as a dispute between eight contributors - presumably it's not a personality issue between all eight.  However, if all those involved on the talk page will agree to a mediated discussion - with the understanding that the mediator will not be deciding the content of the article - then perhaps we could try that. Or, if the personality conflict is between specific contributors (perhaps Sam and FeloniousMonk?) then perhaps a private mediation on that issue would be more suitable.  Please let me know what is required here, and who you would like to be your mediator.  (I am available, but you need to know that I am an Agnostic Atheist myself) -- sannse (talk) 10:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to participate, but I suspect that mediation wouldn't solve anything in this case. Even setting aside the nightmare of trying to coordinate an eight-way mediation, Sam and I have already gone through mediation over the exact same dispute on the exact same article back in February. Our mediation went fine but here we are once again with the same problem. I believe Sannse is correct that this is a fundamental disagreement over facts, not a personality clash or a personal misunderstanding. Bryan 01:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would suggest its a mix of fanaticism, philosophical/theological/etymological/semantical disagreement, and personality clash. Put that in a blender with some bile and expresso, and here you have Talk:Atheism ;) Sam [Spade] 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bryan's assessment of the cause, and the challenges and likelihood of success of mediation, given that this would be the second time for the article and two of the principals to go to mediation in less than 12 months. My experience has been that there are some who are either woefully unaware of the facts, or willfully ignoring facts as well as evidence in the form of cites of significant reference sources. There has been some amount of ideological ax-grinding going on as well.--FeloniousMonk 16:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm stepping out of there anyway, and not going back. I'd rather edit articles than spend time on talk pages achieving nothing. I do feel it's not just a factual dispute (there are some people who are not being civil, there are some not assuming good faith, for example). However, whatever mediation is required I don't feel I need to be a part of, since I do not feel any personal animosity towards any of the participants, and I don't feel there's anything that would prevent me from working with them in the future on other pages. If anyone there feels differently about me, I'd welcome them to drop me a note on my talk page and we can discuss it. Shane King 10:51, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Then, unless you want to make a specific request Sam - I think this is not a suitable case for mediation at this point, and I will archive this request -- sannse (talk) 22:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr
HistoryBuffEr has consistently insisted on completely re-writing stable articles in a highly POV way, in particular and most recently) the Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, Rachel Corrie, Sabra and Shatila massacre articles. As a simple example of POV, he has insisted that the only NPOV way of describing Israeli settlements (the generally accepted term) is as "occupation colonies", going so far as to removing direct links to the Wikipedia article. This is a long-standing pattern with him, present from his very first edits on Wikipedia.  Even more significantly, in spite of dozens or perhaps hundreds of contested edits on these pages, HistoryBuffEr has refused to discuss any of them on the relevant Talk: pages, and in most cases has never even edited the Talk: pages, ignoring many invitations and requests to do so.  As well, on the few articles where he does use the Talk: pages, his comments are often highly abusive, violating No personal attacks and Civility policies. Finally, as he has stated as policy that he will not respond to me at all, I have not approached him on this matter, but come directly here. Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update: I have "taken the plunge" and informed him on his Talk: page. Jayjg 16:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Update: I request mediation to work out these issues with HistoryBuffEr. Jayjg 19:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Jayjg is confusing Mediation with a Soapbox or a Request for Comments:
 * Jayjg does not state any goals for this mediation (other than the implicit goal of imposing his POV.)
 * Jayjg still fails to see fault in any of his numerous transgressions:
 * Incessantly imposing his ultra-extremist POV, denying even the most obvious facts.
 * Calling on everyone to submit edits to his pre-approval (!?!), while he has never submitted any of his edits for anyone's approval.
 * Ignoring conclusions of article discussions and reimposing his POV.
 * Reverting and reverting, day and night, without explanation or justification (other than calling fair edits "vandalism"); Jayjg has probably more reverts than any other sysop.

All this suggests that Jayjg is not proposing mediation in good faith, but merely as another tool to smear opponents and promote his POV. This RfM should be withdrawn or put on hold until Jayjg states something that goes beyond the soapbox/RfC level and shows that he is ready for mediation. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
 * Jayjg does not even hint at any flexibility on his part at this time.


 * Jayjg, have you tried discussion this issue with other users at Requests for comment? If so, please leave a link here to the discussion.  Thanks. sannse (talk) 23:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried previous Requests for comment on related issues with related individuals (see Requests for comment/Alberuni). All that happened was that the partisans on each side lined up and voted along party lines, and promises were made by the person under the Request for Comment, and promptly ignored. Jayjg 16:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, at this stage, it's useful to know exactly what the difficulty is. although that can look like a list of accusations it does help to give the mediators a starting point for understanding the dispute.  So Jayjg's comments are necessary at this point.  As mediation is a private and confidential process any discussions are likely to be held away from the public view and so hopefully your concerns won't be a problem.  But it's also a voluntary process, so if you are firm on not taking part at this point, please let me know and I'll archive this request -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am open to genuine mediation, but Jayjg's request is clearly insincere. Aside from failing to offer assurances of his desire for genuine mediation, Jayjg has continued with his objectionable practices even after posting this RfM. He has maintained his high level of stubborn reverts, eg: he reverted Yasser Arafat articles 7 times within minutes, without posting any explanation or justification or objections to edits. He also repeated his call for me to submit my edits to his approval first (he, of course, considers himself not subject to such "rule".) Then Jayjg asked for page protection and kept reverting to ensure his version gets protected (which is what happened.)
 * As Jayjg has clearly shown again that he is not willing to negotiate any issue, this RfM is invalid and should be removed. HistoryBuffEr 17:05, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)


 * In fact, and as usual, my edits were all to restore long-standing information to the article (in some cases material that had been in the article for over a year) which had been deleted by POV warriors. None of the sections in question were my own edits, I authored none of them.  On the other hand, HistoryBuffEr, as usual, inserted his entirely new version of the article, as he has done many times, and then demanded that others explain why his new article wasn't good.  I am sincere about mediation, and as the Talk: page of the article shows (a Talk: page, by the way, that HistoryBuffEr still seems unaware of), have negotiated on many issues regarding the contents of this article.  Here are just two of many examples: Talk:Yasser_Arafat Talk:Yasser_Arafat. I am hoping this meditiation will achieve a state whereby all changes to controversial articles, from either side, are brought to Talk: first to achieve consensus.  I am also hoping to achieve agreement that preserving longstanding text in reasonably stable articles does not constitute "change", but rather constitutes "no change". And I don't know why I should have to even require meditation to achieve this, this is simply Wikipedia policy, but I am attempting mediation nonetheless. Jayjg 17:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has just confirmed above that he considers his RfM not a means to negotiate but merely a tool to impose his POV. This is my final post here: Invalid RfM, remove. HistoryBuffEr 17:48, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Talk:Zoophilia, User:Ciz
From WP:RFC a few days ago:
 * ''Consensus on NPOV was broadly reached to date, but this article has now had to be protected due to one user's attempt in the last week, to follow their own agenda. The subject of this article is broadly speaking, social, psychological, legal, historic and other information regarding emotional/sexual bonds between humans and animals. There appears to be a user who wants to convert it to an animal sexual abuse page and deems any discussion of his disliked POV, an animal abuser. Issues arising - POV, ranting, name calling (including 2 sysops), and mis-quoting of others sources to discredit previous comments. Discussion not making progress.
 * (Note 1: The user concerned was anon until recently, was banned for 24 hours following his vandalism before the page was protected)''
 * (Note 2: The users approach can be seen in his response to the above RFC, quoted verbatim: "Discussion not making progress" - "You mean, me (sic: not) agreeing with you in that showing bestiality is positive light is ok?")

History of Article:
 * Discussion up to 21 July 2004 amicable, no great controversy.
 * Sept 6, a question was raised over the title of a subsection, no great controversy again.
 * Oct 1, after 2.5 months of being settled, vote proposed on removal of last NPOV tag. (This tag related to a fairly minor unheated question whether something was a useful generalisation or not, and was in the process of being amicably discussed and apparently mostly resolved by Oct 21)
 * Oct 21 - Oct 28, WP:Zoophilia article repeatedly vandalised by an anon IP. 6 reverts needeed before page finally locked by sysop.
 * Oct 28 - Nov 3, Same user (now calling himself Ciz) smears and vandalises, posts long rants in BOLD, taking the number of talk pages from 1 to 4 within 4 days. Other breaches of policy include:
 * Breach of wikiquette, breach of NPOV, responding to any attempt to explain NPOV with personal attacks and allegations, ignoring 2 sysops and multiple users who put time and effort into explaining, trying to make the article about his (different) agenda, accusing those seeking NPOV with comments such as "bet you have sex with your pets huh?", deleting comments made by others from the talk page on at least 2 occasions, accusing sysops (and indeed most contributors) of supporting or engaging in bestiality, weasel words, criticising users for references which he himself had invented and attributed to them ... etc

Background to the article:
 * The WP:Zoophilia article is a reference used by those seeking to understand this affinity or attraction (dictionary.com) between humans/animals, in both its sexual and nosexual form. There is a great deal of formal research, law and history on the social, legal and psychological aspects of these subjects, and since it is factual and sourced, NPOV has seemingly been reached on most of it.


 * It seems Ciz is now willfully attempting to polarise and use it as an advocacy article against bestiality, by entirely ignoring all discussion to the contrary regarding the actual article or its subject.


 * What you dont understand is any sexual form of contact with an animal is bestiality. And most zoophilies advocate having sex with animals. Furthermore, the term zoophilia was created by them, because as Schnee stated, "the term bestiality has such negative connotations." Sort've like how pedophiles use the term 'boylover.'--Ciz 02:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1 --Kizor 14:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * laugh* ... quite FT2 15:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * This ignorance about "the term zoophilia was created by [bestialists]" is now summarised on the article's talk page. FT2 15:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Resolution measures undertaken to date:
 * 6 reversions of vandalism
 * Article locked
 * It seems the user was also banned for a while, unclear when (if at all) he was unbanned.
 * Detailed explanation in Talk artcile, many times, by many users
 * WP:RFC procedure
 * Straw poll of opinion from the talk page: Since Oct 21 (the start of this vandalism), the following users have posted to Talk:Zoophilia:  Ciz, PMC, Ralesk, FT2, FOo, Schnee (sysop), ContiE (sysop)... the verdict seems unanimous including the two sysops, every other contributor has stated words to similar effect.
 * Ciz has been repeatedly asked not to vandalise, not to resort to personal attack, to read and become familiar with prior debate, to read WP:NPOV, not to libel others..... and has repeated since being asked.
 * Ciz has also been asked numerous times not to invent false prior statements or attribute false opinions to other contributors for the purpose of setting up "straw men" to knock down.


 * '''I've made no false statements. The user Schnee is a self-proclaimed furrie, has several sexual photos of animals (wolves in particular) on the internet, and has spoken in defense of bestiality. (not just the npov thing, either.) --Ciz 02:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a fairly good representation of the trouble that has been going on. I'm a bit hazy on whether or not debate is allowed on this page, but as Ciz already started it I figure that if it isn't the comments will likely just be moved to the talk page in quetion. Anyhow: Ciz, not touching what you say of Schnee with a ten-foot stick, he's not nearly the only person you've commented on. Accusing FT2 of having sex with his pets (Archive, page 3, near the bottom) sure seems like attributing false opinions to others to me. -- Kizor 12:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the comment was made following on from an attempt to show Ciz where he is not following NPOV. My points (about an unsupported personal asertation made by Ciz) ended: "This is what is meant by sourced information. A statement that basically says "I, of my own thinking, cannot believe X is true or right", is POV, and should be left out, however strongly you personally may feel it is relevant or true. I am going to suggest we revert the page to how it was before your recent edits, and that if you then have any contributions, they can be discussed here one by one." Ciz's reply was "I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?" FT2 16:00, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have sexual photos of animals online? Wow, I didn't know that. Could you please provide links? -- Schnee 13:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I find it deeply disturbing that Ciz has gone to the lengths of checking the backgrounds and other Internet presence of those who argue against him. I mean, why? Werent you asking for proof on my accusations? --Ciz 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) And by the way, IIRC he's referring to an avatar of yours. -- Kizor
 * To clarify: the "sexual photos of animals" cited by Ciz seems to translate into one non-detailed 100x100 pixel furry cartoon avatar. FT2 16:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * There's more. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://werewolf.schneelocke.net/~schnee/images/gifts/schnee_badge2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.livejournal.com/users/schnee/129387.html&h=591&w=800&sz=80&tbnid=El-2c0BzofAJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=140&start=11&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dschneelocke%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D --Ciz 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You do realize that those pictures have nothing to do with zoophilia? Anyways, this is not the place to discuss the zoophilia issue. Please stop debating here and tell us if you are willing to mediate with (one of) us (see What is mediation? if you haven't already). Thank you. --Conti|✉ 23:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is my feeling (and from the debate, probably that of other contributors), that Ciz would not care for wiki-mediation, however in the attempt to reach a positive outcome I am trying anyway.
 * One last attempt to explain the subject of the page, ignored.

There is broad consensus amongst all contributors that this behaviour is against policy and Wiki-quette, and the user seems to have no grasp of NPOV despite many explanations and much patience.

'''Yet the article speaks positively about bestiality and uses the term zoophilia, which was created by bestials to make it more acceptable. The souces used for the argument have many pro-bestial sources, such as books like "Dearest pet." It is in no way npov. Its no more unbiased than the infamous boylover article wikipedia also hosts. --Ciz 02:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)'''


 * 'Zoophilia', according to dictionary.com, is in established use in the field of psychology. Would you finally care to provide us with a source for that claim? -- Kizor 12:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article rather carefully. I'm still looking for those "many pro bestial sources" (note weasel words) used as "sources" for the article, and in particular for the parts of the article sourced from zoophile "websites" and "Dearest Pet". I don't see any.
 * ''Get your eyes checked.

'''Books
 * '''Midas Dekkers: Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, ISBN 1859843107
 * '''Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, ISBN 0-87975-902-X
 * '''Andrea Beetz: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, ISBN 3832200207
 * '''Marjorie B. Garber: Dog Love, ISBN 0641042728
 * '''Brenda Love: The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, ISBN 1569800111
 * '''Colin J. Williams and Martin S. Weinberg: Zoophilia in Men: a study of sexual interest in animals. - in: Archives of sexual behavior, Vol. 32, No.6, December 2003, pp. 523-535
 * Nancy Friday: My Secret Garden and sequel Forbidden Flowers, notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia. --Ciz 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (Note that either way it is acceptable to source NPOV from a partisan source, thus both the Democratic and Republican articles can quote from writings of George Bush, provided it is within an NPOV context. Again please read WP:NPOV as you have been directed many times now)
 * And once again, this ignorant personal advocacy that zoophilia is somehow not a word (despite being in the dictionary), or was "created by bestials to make it more acceptable" is now left dying on the article's talk page. It is a clinical and medical term (as Ciz himself has said), used in psychology and sexual research to describe an emotional and attractional affinity which may or may not be sexual. FT2 15:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Any form of sexual contaxt with an animal is bestiality.Furthermore, saying you can be erotically attracted to an animal yet not be a bestial is like saying you can be erotically attracted to a child and not be a pedophile.--Ciz 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation or advice please. FT2 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * To clarify the situation about the ban of this user: User:Ciz has allegedly edited the Zoophilia article with the IP 66.30.122.120 (page history). He got reverted, because his edits were extremely POV. He kept inserting his POV into the article besides the reverts, so he got warned and finally blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Very shortly after that, User:Ciz appeared and started to argue that the article is extremely pro-zoophila POV. So, technically, the user was not banned, but the same person editing as an anon was. --Conti|✉ 01:24, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is little case for 'allegedly' left as Ciz has been changing the signatures on 66's comments to his own ones. Just for the record. -- Kizor 12:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One last note: Ciz's most recent edit was a quick vandalization and four minutes later, a reversion of User:FinalGamer's user page, stating, "He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual." PMC 00:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Which is true. Im guessing you havent read his post on the zoophilia board. --Ciz 02:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And? -- Kizor 12:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And what? It's true. He said so himself. --Ciz 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has Ciz been invited to take part in mediation? If not that's your first step. There seem to be a lot of people involved in this dispute, is one person prepared to work with Ciz and the mediator in this matter? Perhaps FT2? The next question for both Ciz and the representative for the others involved is whether you have any preferences as to the mediator. There is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee. Please let us know of any preferences. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think both FT2 and I are willing to work with Ciz and the mediator here, at least. As for mediator preferences, I'd like to respectfully request that it be someone else than Ed Poor (who I think I would not be able to work with well, due to personal reasons). Angela seems like a good choice to me. That being said, I'll add a note to the talk page asking Ciz and everyone else to join the mediation process. -- Schnee 15:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to work on this, and I have no preference for or against specific individuals (since I don't know any of them), in the interests of neutrality I leave that to sannse or whoever is going to help set this up. However I have a comment that may be relevant to the selection.  This can be a difficult topic for some people, and may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions.  A bit like writing an NPOV summary about Israel in a Palestinian newspaper, so to speak. My ideal mediator would be someone whose primary goal is a good article written in accordance with good wiki standards, and who has read the article as it stands, and the debate first (1st and and current of the 5 Talk pages would be enough to get a flavour) to check they can work with it (both content- and discussion-wise). I'd hope most of the mediation folks are used to such things though. FT2 21:40, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to work on this as well. It'd be nice to finally sort this all out, although it seems Ciz has vanished into thin

air...his last edit being on November the 4th. PMC 00:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I also would be willing to work on this, although I'm not sure if too many wikipedians to mediate with wouldn't make the whole thing more complicated that it already is. I don't have any preferences who the mediator will be either. --Conti|✉ 05:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I updated the talk page encouraging everyone to come here and take part in the mediation process. Ciz hasn't responded yet, though. -- Schnee 22:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone, including Ciz, to stop the debate here for now. Let's concentrate on getting the mediation up and running - and then the issues can be discussed within the mediation.

Ciz - the question for you at the moment is whether you are prepared to try mediation with the people you are in dispute with. Please read What is mediation? for more information on what this is all about, then let me know if you are willing to give mediation a go.

Others - I think, for the first part of the mediation at least, it would be useful to restrict the mediation to being between Ciz and one other person (who can then represent the rest of you). More people is possible if you would prefer that, but I believe it better to start with a smaller scale discussion. It seems to me that you are all in general agreement as to the problems here. So, if that's agreeable to you all, please let me know who will represent you.

Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 15:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''The following is a highly edited version of the discussion so far. All comments except those relating directly to setting up the mediation have been removed. This includes removing statements from both sides that will be useful as part of the mediation, but can be put aside until then (they are, of course, preserved in the history and can be restored for archiving). Any attributed comments have not been edited - except where clearly indicated. Removal of comments is not meant to imply any opinion about them - it's just an attempt to concentrate on seeing if we can set this up.''' -- sannse (talk) 00:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation was requested by FT2 at 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Since Oct 21 the following users have posted to Talk:Zoophilia: Ciz, PMC, Ralesk, FT2, FOo, Schnee (sysop), ContiE (sysop)

Has Ciz been invited to take part in mediation? If not that's your first step. There seem to be a lot of people involved in this dispute, is one person prepared to work with Ciz and the mediator in this matter? Perhaps FT2? The next question for both Ciz and the representative for the others involved is whether you have any preferences as to the mediator. There is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee. Please let us know of any preferences. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think both FT2 and I are willing to work with Ciz and the mediator here, at least. As for mediator preferences, I'd like to respectfully request that it be someone else than Ed Poor (who I think I would not be able to work with well, due to personal reasons). Angela seems like a good choice to me. That being said, I'll add a note to the talk page asking Ciz and everyone else to join the mediation process. -- Schnee 15:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to work on this, and I have no preference for or against specific individuals (since I don't know any of them), in the interests of neutrality I leave that to sannse or whoever is going to help set this up. However I have a comment that may be relevant to the selection.  This can be a difficult topic for some people, and may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions.  A bit like writing an NPOV summary about Israel in a Palestinian newspaper, so to speak. My ideal mediator would be someone whose primary goal is a good article written in accordance with good wiki standards, and who has read the article as it stands, and the debate first (1st and and current of the 5 Talk pages would be enough to get a flavour) to check they can work with it (both content- and discussion-wise). I'd hope most of the mediation folks are used to such things though. FT2 21:40, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I updated the talk page encouraging everyone to come here and take part in the mediation process. Ciz hasn't responded yet, though. -- Schnee 22:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to work on this as well. It'd be nice to finally sort this all out, although it seems Ciz has vanished into thin air...his last edit being on November the 4th. PMC 00:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I also would be willing to work on this, although I'm not sure if too many wikipedians to mediate with wouldn't make the whole thing more complicated that it already is. I don't have any preferences who the mediator will be either. --Conti|✉ 05:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone, including Ciz, to stop the debate here for now. Let's concentrate on getting the mediation up and running - and then the issues can be discussed within the mediation.

Ciz - the question for you at the moment is whether you are prepared to try mediation with the people you are in dispute with. Please read What is mediation? for more information on what this is all about, then let me know if you are willing to give mediation a go.

Others - I think, for the first part of the mediation at least, it would be useful to restrict the mediation to being between Ciz and one other person (who can then represent the rest of you). More people is possible if you would prefer that, but I believe it better to start with a smaller scale discussion. It seems to me that you are all in general agreement as to the problems here. So, if that's agreeable to you all, please let me know who will represent you.

Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 15:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to, unless anyone else wants. FT2 03:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, sannse - just checking as this is my 1st contact with mediation, I'm assuming that "one person representing" wouldn't prevent others from being kept up to date whats gone on? For what it's worth, my impressions are that most contributors in the talk page discussion would be able to work positively and yet not interrupt a 2 or 3 way mediation dialog. Its also clear at least a couple of people have an interest in the discussion. So for these reasons, my suggested preference of the options on the mediation page would be IRC chat, where extra contributors can be barred from talking in a mediation discussion (+m) without being totally excluded. That also works well as most IRC networks have a web browser version which ensures accessibility. FT2 03:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think FT2 will be a great representative, so I fully support him. -- Schnee 03:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup, me too. --Conti|✉ 11:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Slightly late on my part, but I support FT2 fully. PMC 20:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation can be very flexible - it's a case of what works rather than any set process. Whether others can observe, what information on progress is made public, how many people are directly involved - all these will be up to the participants and the mediator. -- sannse (talk) 10:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

''The following comment is directed to Ciz. Sniped and moved to the end of the discussion:''

[...] this is not the place to discuss the zoophilia issue. Please stop debating here and tell us if you are willing to mediate with (one of) us (see What is mediation? if you haven't already). Thank you. --Conti|✉ 23:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather not have FT2 do it, as I believe his opinion on the subject matter is not neutral. --Ciz 00:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neither is yours. Are you willing to mediate? PMC 00:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation means, there are two sides. Someone neutral helps both sides to talk and makes sure that both sides follow wiki rules, in case either side isnt doing so. Each side in a situation has one "voice", so mediation is usually 3 people - "a person from side 1", "a person from side 2" and "a mediator who both sides respect and listen to, who wikipedia trusts to know the rules and says 'you can trust this person really is being fair' ". FT2 03:53, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you don't understand what mediation is about and what it works like, Ciz. Mediation is a process that involves two parties (you and the rest of us), and since we're a group, we select a single representative to facilitate the mediation process. This is not the same as choosing the mediator to work with; you do not have a say in this matter, obviously. -- Schnee 01:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the mediator be neutral? FT2's opinion on the subject are not neutral. --Ciz 05:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * We're not asking that FT2 meditate; we're asking that he represent us as a group. The mediator is an entirely different person, one with no previous involvement in the discussion. That person will act as a middleman, a go-between, for the two sides to speak their minds and negotiate. Like FT2 himself said: "person from side A", "person from side B", and Mediator. PMC 06:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As PMC and Schnee have said - FT2 would represent the other side of the conflict to you. He would not be a mediator.  The mediator would be chosen from the members of the Mediation Committee and would work with you and FT2 to resolve the dispute.  The choice of mediator is the second question here, but first I need to know if you are willing to be involved in this.  Do you use IRC?  If so I would be happy to meet with you there and discuss any concerns you have about this process. - - sannse (talk) 14:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)


 * I dont think I use IRC --Ciz 15:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't continue asking this question if you won't answer it: are you willing to participate in mediation? At this point, if you do not specifically say that you will in your next message, I will understand that to mean that you do not wish to do so.  -- sannse (talk) 17:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, then. --Ciz 18:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ciz. The next question is who should be your mediator. I am available - will you accept me as mediator? If not, please look at the list of mediators at Mediation Committee and I can ask if they would be willing to help. Please let me know what you decide. -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From User talk:Ciz: You can be the mediator.--Ciz 01:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Ciz.

FT2: you said you have no preference - are you OK with me as mediator? -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am utterly neutral on the subject, if I'd had a preference, I would have said. If you're both happy and Ciz feels okay with it, I am too. FT2 18:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks FT2.

OK the first thing I’m going to ask you both to do is to hold off on discussing this at Talk:Zoophilia for a while, just let that page go for now, and we will move all discussion to within the mediation. I’d also ask other participants on that page to postpone discussion there as much as possible. Let your representative discuss for you within the mediation.

FT2 and Ciz. Perhaps we can start by both of you emailing me explaining what you want from each other. My address is sannse(at)tiscali.co.uk I will keep your email address confidential – neither of you will see the other's address at any time. If you want to, you could create a throw-away account for this rather than use your regular address.

Please read Confidentiality_during_mediation before writing to me – this sets out the confidentiality rules I work by and what I would expect from you. Please let me know if you are happy with this and agree to your part within them - or if you have any concerns about them.

Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (note - may be a delay, away some of the weekend) FT2 22:25, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Ranamim
As documented at Requests for comment/Ranamim, User:Ranamim has repeatedly and egregiously insulted at least three Wikipedians, including myself. Other dubious conduct is also detailed there and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ranamim. I was hoping that just raising a request for comment would get him to back off, but apparently all it is getting him to do is hide behind an anonymous IP address. I am asking for mediation (I'm not sure if any of the other people he has insulted want to join me; if so they can sign themselves up here). I will accept mediation by any member of the mediation committee. Given his behavior so far I can't imagine he will accept mediation, but I'm giving him the chance. If he does not I will certainly ask for arbitration, regardless of whether he will participate in the process or not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ---

What do you want? I don't understand. I can no longer edit with my old username because your friend, rrickK, who I wouldn't say anything about banned my IP (strangely, it happens so often, there is another request about him on this very page). He did me a favor because I don't wish to spend too much time here. (I wish I were at Edinburgh University to have more time to do so, though) And frankly, like I pointed earlier, communicating with you is not worth my time. If this is insulting to you, I am sorry. This is not a perfect world. We all make decisions based on some rationales. Simply put, I prefer to optimally allocate my time among activites that benefit me the most. That includes not communicating with people to whom I have to constantly explain my logic or actions which seem transparent to people of the level of intelligence that I normally surround myself with. A sufficient number of your comments have solidified my opinion about you. At some point your called that "hatred" or whatnot...well, yes, I do not like dumb people. Your web page's profile added additional evidence to my suspicions. So, that's it. You are Ranamim-free. Go, make the world ....a "better" place. And all the people who I commented about (according to you "insulted") happened to be graduates of the same university over a dispute for pages of THAT university. It is called conflict of interest. I think it is now resolved, so I am back to contributing where I normally do and you to whatever makes you happy. And if you prefer to waste with some requests for mediations and whatever else you like...go ahead. In economics (game theory), it is called Signalling. I take it to be a reflection of the almost non-existent opportunity cost of your time which only strengthens my opinions about you as noted above. But don't expect me to engage in some kind of lengthy polemic about numerous issues. It won't happen.

Ranamim


 * For whatever it's worth, unless something was going on that I don't know about, I think RickK was out of line to block/ban Ranamim. As for the opportunity cost of my time: it's pretty high, it's why I've never gone this route before. And I take the above as declining mediation, but it also sounds like he says he's going away, which I guess would resolve the matter. I reserve the right to re-open it if he continues to participate in Wikipedia and to hurl invective. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, the opportunity cost is very high. You don't have to say it...your postings display it. As an artist or whatever it is that you claim you are, you should know that you are better off showing things not saying them and leave the judgement to the rest. I am not declining anything, my dear...I just don't have the time to deal with this for the reasons given above. Don't take it personally. Given the alternative, I just don't want to deal with you. Thanks. --Ranamim


 * My understanding of the above is that mediation won't take place at this time. Please let me know if I have misunderstood.  If there is no further comment I will archive this tomorrow.  -- sannse (talk) 22:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems true to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk and User:Kim Bruning
Hmm, I'm trying to explain to Feloniousmonk that
 * He shouldn't misrepresent wikipedia policy to folks.
 * He might want to learn some things about it still, so as to solve the problem above

And hmm well,
 * He shouldn't misrepresent what other people have been saying (including me! :-)

I don't really intend to attack him on any of these points, I'd just like to point out that he should improve on them. He keeps misunderstanding me for some reason though, right now he probably thinks I'm out for his blood.

I've already tried talking with him onUser Talk:FeloniousMonk. I've tried asking Jwrosenzweig for advice and I'd also asked Jimbo Wales (who is known to remain very cool headed :-) ) if maybe he could have a chat with FeloniousMonk, though this discussion was distorted by misunderstandings again, and I don't think Jimbo even got the message.

I have not attempted RFC, because I think the pattern would repeat there, making it harder to reconcile. (Though I'd certainly do so if people really insist.)

Perhaps a mediator acting as a filter would prevent further misunderstandings from occurring, I certainly hope so. So I'd like to officially ask for mediation in this matter.

Kim Bruning 21:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decline this particular mediation for three reasons:
 * It is my position that this RfM was not made in good faith, but that it is another instance of Kim Bruning's long-running badgering and bullying of me. That Kim Bruning has a past history of bullying me is a fact borne out by ample evidence, including an entire 1/2 page of Jimbo's Talk page memorializing Kim's idea constructive criticism while repeatedly refusing my suggestion that we agree to assume the other's good faith, shake hands, part friends and go our separate ways to leave the other to contribute unmolested. Kim's incessant badgering and my responses to it finally necessitated Jimbo telling both parties to chill. Within hours of Jimbo telling us both to chill Kim began this RfM.
 * Kim has failed to state (despite repeated calls to do so elsewhere) exactly what policies I am so unclear on that it requires Jimbo's attention and an RfM, and exactly why it's such a pressing matter that he had to go to Jimbo, and failing there, begin this RfM, less than one week after badgering me on my Talk page with ""I'd really love to see what'd happen if you had a short debate with Jimbo Wales on wikipedia policy. If you're feeling shy or so, I'd talk with him first if you like.". My one or two instances of either misunderstanding or misstating policies were minor and honest mistakes. That Kim continually blows these one or two minor instances out of proportion is material to my claim he is badgering and bully me. I should point out that Kim himself is unclear on the policies and misstated them himself as shown on the previous version of Jimbo's Talk page referenced above, a point of no small irony and relevance and one apparently lost on Kim. Res ipsa loquitur.
 * I have asked Kim repeatedly to leave me alone, yet he continues with actions like this and those at Jimbo's page. Kim is officially on my 'ignore' list now, as I have absolutely no confidence in his good faith due to his actions against me. I'm sorry, but he's earned it from my perspective. I see no point in my going through this process to assuage his concern when he's shown so little respect for mine.

Instead, I make this counter-offer (again)- that Kim and I agree to assume the other's good faith, shake hands, and go our separate ways to leave the other to contribute unmolested.--FeloniousMonk 16:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot bully me into not doing my job. Mediation is here to help us work out our differences, which we definately have, as you'll agree. I have not done anything to hurt you so far, please believe me. If you refuse mediation, I'm afraid my next step will have to hurt though. Are you sure about this? Kim Bruning 17:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * QED. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Kim's comments above do not constitute bullying? By an admin, no less.


 * As I've said before Kim, you've never established that there is indeed "a job" that needs to be done here. What you fail to understand is that every time you threaten me thusly, every time you drag me before Jimbo or up for RfM it is just adding one more bullet point to my already long list of evidence that you are indeed bullying me. You have crossed the line and abused your position as an admin bullying me, even a senior sysop has written to me that you have. As I've said before, I will use every method wikipedia provides to protect myself from persecution in the form in malicious prosecution. Continue on your present path badgering and threatening me and I will be the one seeking recourse. One more action from you, and it is I that will have all the evidence I need for a rock-solid case against you. BTW, just because you choose to ignore Jimbo's order that we both must chill, doesn't mean that I will as well. I'm done with you. Time to chill ;-). --FeloniousMonk 17:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I want to reassure you that any mediation would look at both sides of the dispute and try to resolve your concerns as well as Kim's. That said, it is also a completely voluntary process, and if you choose not to participate that is entirely up to you. If you do choose not to participate, Kim may choose to ask for arbitration – although I would strongly urge both of you to consider that a last resort and try to see if you can resolve your differences amicably – whether that is within the mediation process or not. -- sannse (talk) 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sannse, my offer to Kim to settle our differences amicably remains on the table.


 * I appreciate your reassurance about the RfM process. I admit to having some reservations about the impartiality of official proceedings adjudicating disputes involving admins. I will consider your comments further and may indeed reverse my decision. I will also point out here that Kim's actions have helped me build a very strong case against him for bullying and abusing his position as an admin, and that I have met all requirements but one for taking it to arbitration, which seems certain to happen considering Kim's past performance and constant refusal to cease and accept my offers to settle this matter.


 * Would you please clarify something for me. How does the RfM process determine the good faith of an RfM and the person bringing it? I ask this because Jimbo told both Kim and me yesterday to "chill", yet Kim starts right back at it immediately the same day with this RfM, making the bad faith of his RfM action implicit.


 * I'll get back to you on whether I've reconsidered participating in this RfM.--FeloniousMonk 18:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It can be very difficult for both sides to trust the intent of the other, but I have had the experience within mediation of that trust developing over time. From a mediator's point of view, I consider it important for me to start with the assumption that both sides are acting in good faith - although my views on that may change over time, and if I became convinced otherwise I would end a mediation attempt. For your other concern - I think the main thing here is careful choice of mediator. If you can choose someone who you both feel comfortable with, that is ideal. All the current mediators are also admins, but that covers a wide range of styles and opinions. If you choose to try mediation, hopefully you can decide on a mediator that you feel you can trust. -- sannse (talk) 20:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sannse, your explanation helped me. Were I to agree to mediation here, it would only be if we included as an item on the agenda for resolution my claim that Kim is indeed bullying and harassing me. If the mediation will cover that issue, that would go a long way to get me to agree to this mediation. Another option is to begin a separate RfM against Kim for harassment, but it doesn't make a lot of sense considering we already have this dialog open here.--FeloniousMonk 21:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, mediation is always a two sided process, another RfM isn't needed - this mediation would be to discuss Kim's concerns and yours -- sannse (talk) 21:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered, and I agree to this mediation with Kim Bruning as long as it is understood and agreed that the mediation process will also address my concerns over the following issues and will give equal time to their consideration with the purpose being to resolve them and to stop Kim Bruning from continuing as described below should they be determined to be well-founded.

Specifically, my claims to be addressed in mediation are that Kim Bruning has:
 * Bullied and badgered me - Since our first encounter Kim Bruning has gone out of his way to seek me out and confront me in a inflammatory and provocative fashion over nugatory, ill-defined and inflated concerns.
 * Conducted malicious prosecution and abuse of process - Kim has continued to engage me and threaten me with wikipedia processes with the knowledge that his claims against me lack merit, and brought for a reason (harassment and annoyance) other than to seek a official wikipedia determination of the claim. For example, less than 24 hours after Jimbo summed up Kim's concerns and my response as "a huge meta-debate which managed in large part to avoid discussing any actual particulars of anything at all", in essence frivolous and without merit, and told both Kim and myself to "chill" on the matter, Kim Bruning started this meretricious and baseless Request for mediation.
 * Abused his position - In conducting himself as described above Kim Bruning has abused his position as a sysop. For example, on this page you will find an instance of Kim Bruning once again invoking his position and "his job" as justification for harassing me over non-specific, frivolous matters.

--FeloniousMonk 20:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you FeloniousMonk.

The next stage is to choose your mediator. I am available, or we can ask another mediator from the list at Mediation Committee. The main thing is to find one that you can both agree on. The other question is where mediation should take place. This can be on the old mediation bulletin board, on IRC, by email - or in any other way agreed by you both and your mediator. My own belief is that email is a good way to start. Please both let me know your opinions on these two questions. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of the available mediators seem ok by me, perhaps Feloniousmonk has a preference? I wouldn't mind if you did mediation. I'd prefer mediation per E-mail, since that'd help with filtering communications. Kim Bruning 20:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be unable to begin the mediation process before 12/1 due to a work project requiring my full attention and travel during the holiday next week. I'll use this time to consider my preference for mediator, and respond with my choice before 12/1. Email would be my preferred mode for conducting this as well.--FeloniousMonk 18:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply both. I will partially archive this discussion tomorrow.  It will still be available for you and your chosen mediator when you revisit this when you are ready. -- sannse (talk) 21:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I too would be pleased if Sannse performed the mediation.--FeloniousMonk 06:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - I'm happy to help. Please could you both email me at sannse(at)tiscali.co.uk with a summary of the problem as you see it.  Please could you also read Confidentiality during mediation and let me know if you are happy with that.  Thanks both -- sannse (talk) 19:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users CheeseDreams, SIrubenstein and Amgine
For ease I've grouped these two together, and for respect I've kept them separate below the above heading as they were posted by those seeking mediation. FT2 22:31, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

(1) Users CheeseDreams and Amgine, by Slrubenstein
Several days ago Cultural and historical background of Jesus because CheeseDream and I had begun an edit war. Since then there have been mounds of discussion about the various issues. Although CheeseDreams and Amgine often call for votes on specific points and claim to represent a consensus version, these votes are generally on matters of content, and follow inadequate discussion. I find it practically impossible to have a civil, productive discussion with these two contributors, and feel that the process has been hijacked.

There are two major substantive concerns. One -- which has been discussed various times with mixed results -- is the nature of the article. CheeseDream considers it a violation of POV to assume Jesus existed, and has claimed that the article should simply be about Roman Palestine between 1 and 33 CE; most others believe it is legitimate to include Jesus in the title and article; I have pointed out that this article began as a daughter article from the Jesus page when that page became too long. The original purpose of the page was to provide an account of how academic critical historians and Bible scholars view Jesus' life (the bulk of the Jesus article provides an account from a Christian point of view).

The second concerns verifiability. CheeseDream and Amgine have proposed and called for votes on various passages that include assertions of fact that I believe are flat out wrong and do not reflect any of a range of views of current academic researchers. I have asked each of them, several times, to provide evidence and sources. Both have refused. Instead, they have demanded I provide sources for my claims. I have provided my sources, and they have dismissed my research. At one point, user:Mpolo asked a question and I gave a well-researched answer -- which CheeseDream dismissed by saying "someone Jewish is best placed to find out the answers. CheeseDreams 10:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)" (the entire exchange is now in Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2.

I admit that the talk page, with two archived pages, is now very long and it would take a long time for a mediator to go through the whole thing. Alas, the length of the discussion is in part evidence of the problem -- and I believe it is largely caused by CheeseDream and a few others, most recently Amgine's, lengthy but utterly uninformed arguments. However, I have a specific request: one section of the discussion, "the new messiah paragraph" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph illustrates all of the problems I am having with CheeseDream and Amgine. This very long section (which CheeseDream recently divided, a little arbitrarily, into several parts) is basically a debate over two proposed revised sections of the article, one by Amgine, and one by me. After proposing his version, Amgine wrote "this is only a first attempt, so go ahead and rip on it." Along with other users, I pointed out various problems almost all of which were dismissed. I asked several times for sources and proof and was ignored or rebuked. I then proposed my version and it was dismissed out of hand. I asked what was wrong with my version and the answer was basically that it wasn't Amgine's.

The following (and, surrently, last) section -- CheeseDream's paragraph on Messianic Movements -- also provides a very clear example of my difficulty communicating (working productively on the article, via the talk page) with CheeseDreams.

The effect of all of this is that any question I ask is brushed off, and any suggestion I make is brushed off. It is as if Amgine and CheeseDream want to ban me from working on this article. This is especially upsetting to me as I have done considerable research on this topic, and with every comment of theirs, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that CheeseDream and Amgine have done none. I thought Danny would be a well-situated mediator, but see he has resigned. I think Bcorr would be a good mediator as well. Slrubenstein 17:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We have not recieved notice of this request for mediation CheeseDreams 21:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Amgine is the only one of the three editors currently active in this dispute, to submit a version of the article which he thinks is the best one, User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 currently that's about where the consensus building attempt stands. As I see it, Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein are very close to agreement on substantial portions of the text, and I believe a good foundation for consensus would be for the two of them to also propose their own version of what the best article would be.  The two of them do not seem inclined to listen to each other and I think mediation would be a poor solution, arbitration might be more suitable.  All 3 of the above have made substantial contributions to the article and to the discussion.  User:FT2 was also involved in discussion, attempting to assist the goal of reaching consensus... FT2's comments might well be solicited on this.Pedant 22:22, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)


 * See below for my comments on CheeseDreams/SIRubenstein, I suggest we combine these two if possible. FT2 22:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Users CheeseDreams and Amgine by Slreubenstein
I wholeheartedly accept this request for mediation.

Response to Request for Mediation: Users CheeseDreams Amgine by Slrubenstein

 * Paragraph 1:
 * Dispute. The edit revisions are first mentioned on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2 dated Nov. 1, more than two weeks ago. First mention - Slreubenstein reporting his revert of CheeseDreams edits. While many votes have occurred on a variety of topics, only a single instance of more than 50 occasions shows a first vote by myself, and no calls for votes. It is not possible to "hijack" the process at Wikipedia, although it is certainly possible to distort it; the articles are not "owned". This characterization by Slrubenstein has been repeated during the discussion. (edit - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 2:
 * Dispute. Multiple votes developed a consensus regarding these issues. (see Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2 and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2) Previous mediator (User:FT2) specifically addressed the point of "daughter article".
 * Note, FT2 is not an official mediator; many of the votes were called for by CheeseDream -- in my opinion, prior to adequate discussion, and as an attempt to end discussion.Slrubenstein
 * Response to Slrubenstein's note: While it is possible FT2 was not acting in official capacity as a mediator, it was assumed he was acting as a mediator as his actions suggested it, and the reactions of other contributors to those actions, including those of Slrubenstein. - Amgine 01:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To expand on Slrubenstein's statement above, there were approximately five separate votes on the question of what the article is about. Although the wording changed with regularity, the consistent majority opinion is best summed by Pedant's wording: the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion and really there is not much need to discuss who it is that does or doesn't believe Jesus actually lived, the article is about the culture and events of the 'time in which Jesus is said to have lived', which in one vote carried 5 agree to 2 disagree and on two other occasions was not contested in discussion. Similar consensus agreed the article should include asides about Jesus as relevant, as opposed to focusing solely on the context. A vote also specifically rejected focusing this article exclusively as a review of Jesus' life. - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 3:
 * Dispute. Previous votes were called for by previous mediator. Citations have been offered in the manner of links and external links, as well as keywords. On Wikipedia see Messiah and List of messiah claimants and Jewish eschatology and Mandeans. Upon dismissal of these citations, Slrubenstein was challenged to present juried citation for the exclusion. He returned with citations which did not address the issue. ("I cannot give you a specific page where they say that there were no other groups of messiahs -- they just never mention it." see Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus) Furthermore, none of the cited texts were of peer-reviewed published articles, as requested. The question of citations was brought to personal talk pages, where my request for cooperation was rebuffed. See User talk:Slrubenstein.
 * Note: I provided citations for all of my claims; the citations are from scholarly books, written by recognized scholars, and frequently cited in scholarly literature. When I wrote that none of these books mention other Messiahs, I explained that that was a major reason for suspecting that Amgine and CheeseDream's claims were without foundation; I asked them to provide sources or citations and they did not. Slrubenstein
 * Response to Slrubenstein's note: It is a subtle differentiation, but Slrubenstein did not provide any citation for his claims. What he attempted to cite was a lack of refutation, which is not in fact evidentiary at all. Furthermore, he has made a considerable number of claims, which might all have been based on the six texts/five authors offere, but he did not present those as citations to back up any other claim. - Amgine 01:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What Amgine says is true. I contend that the essential point is that what I wrote was based on serious research and is verifiable, and I presented my sources.  I do not believe that what Amgine and CheeseDream wrote is based on serious research or is verifiable.  I may be wrong about that so I asked them for their sources.  They refuse to provide any sources. Slrubenstein
 * Response to Slrubenstein's comment: See Paragraph 3 above. - Amgine 17:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "What Amgine says is true"CheeseDreams 19:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 4
 * Dispute. A history of the section in question begins on Talk:Wesley, supported by the mediator, in an attempt to rewrite the paragraphs. The goal was to edit these paragraphs over which the primary feudants disagreed without their direct involvement. Using a variety of sources but primarily the exact text from the revision war paragraphs, a compromise text was proposed. (see User:Pedant/CaHBJ) CheeseDreams chose not to involve; Slrubenstein chose to involve. Of the 5 specific edits brought forth by Slrubenstein, 4 are currently a part of the proposed version.


 * I further dispute Slrubenstein's characterization that the majority of the section is a discussion of the merits two competing proposals; in fact his proposal is presented for the first time more than half through the section (more than that in time), along with his call for (another) consensus vote in the last section. By my count there were 6 revisions to the compromise text, plus an additional copy, to be contrasted with 3 copies of Slrubenstein's proposed version (I did not diff these copies for edits.) Further, I specifically dispute the characterization that its length is primarily due to passages by either myself or CheeseDreams. I will gladly perform textual analysis on this section using standard tools, such as NUDIST, if the mediator should request it, or can suggest (and offer to pay for) several experts in the field to perform the relevant analyses. Or the mediator is invited to count lines her/himself. (edit - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * Paragraph 5
 * While not disputed, it is noted that this section developed after the point at which CheeseDreams, citing Wikipedia policy to avoid inevitable conflict, stated publically he would avoid any and all direct discussion with Slrubenstein, a policy Slrubenstein is now claiming as obstructionist.


 * Paragraph 6
 * Dispute, as exemplified by Paragraph 4, above, Slrubenstein's contributions are both sought and encouraged, at least by myself, and further are included in current edits.

- Amgine 22:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(2) Slrubenstein, by CheeseDreams
The following includes Quotes from Slrubenstein.

Issues of civility (from a single article talk page, in a single fortnight):


 * Stop distorting the facts, Cheese (when I disagreed with him on what the facts were)
 * With all due respect, FT2, you misunderstand the situation (FT2 was mediating the debate)
 * Well, a definition that includes "etc." is a piss-poor definition
 * I have many doubts about your memory
 * This verges on racism (other contributers disagreed)
 * CheeseDreams verges on racism (section title later removed by FT2)
 * Lacking any explanation on your point, your comment was racist (after (a) I initially provided explanation, and (b) other contributers disagreed that it was racist, and (c) I asked for an apology for the racist slur)
 * I never called you a racist (quite obviously not true)
 * two ways I read your penultimate sentence, and they are both moronic
 * Your claim........is frankly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard
 * This summary mischaracterizes the discussion (when Amgine summarised the votes after archiving, and issues in the discussion and the fact that there was not agreement on some points - absolutely no-one else objected to the summary)
 * You are an intellectual coward (when I refused to respond directly to him until he comply with Civility policy)
 * Amgine is simply revealing his ignorance
 * CheeseDream, like Amgine, fundamentally misunderstands the Wikipedia process
 * it comes to facts, Cheese's notion of compromise is just silly (compare my compromises with User:Mpolo)
 * I know from my research that many statements by Amgine and CheeseDreams are wrong

(from his talk page)
 * I think CheeseDream has been acting in a malicious and damaging way (because I formally objected to his Gerrymandering, and reverted some of his POV edits)

(from Amgine's talk page)
 * You have made your own ignorance clear. (referring to Amgine's principle of trying to produce compromise)
 * That your claims to this ignorant authority have taken up so much space on the talk page isonly obstructionist (referring to the same attempt at compromise)
 * You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way (again)


 * I hope only that the mediator look at my entire statements, and look at them in context. Slrubenstein

Issues of debating behaviour

I think we are on very shaky ground, rejecting good research because we don't like the researcher. (when I objected to personal research based on the No personal research policy, and his own statement that We should rely on research done by others, and that Most historians see Hinduism as coming into existence in the 19th century as a result of English colonialism (which is blatently not true))

Call me a snob, but if it isn't in a peer-reviewed publication or a book published by an academic press, or by an established scholar, I do not think it should be described as "historical evidence." (this would discount the tomb of tutankhamun being "historical evidence", since it was found by a camel herder)
 * This was in the context of a discussion of published works by people claiming to be (or claimed to be) scholars. Slrubenstein

Further I object to the manner in which, as a (protected page) debate clearly approaches consensus (predominantly against his POV), Slrubenstein opens up an entirely new issue about what the nature and title of the page ought to be. When consensus on this new issue was predominanly reached against him, he opened up a new debate on all the original issues that we had just reached consensus on.
 * I explained that I felt this issue underlied most of the other issues onder discussion. I raised legitimate points that are worth considering.  If no one wants to consider my points that is fine.  But just because a few people agree with CheeseDreams does not mean that I cannot raise important issues on the talk page. Slrubenstein

In addition, when the debate went to voting, I noted (by looking at his contributions list) that Slrubenstein had sent comments to people who appear to support his POV (from their edit history), but not to those who didn't. To me, this seems unethical, and Gerrymandering. From his talk page, User:Eloquence objected to the behaviour as well.
 * I explained that I was merely contacting the earliest contributors to the discussion -- people whose views I was unsure of. Eloquence never commented on this discussion.  Several other editors explained to CheeseDreams that I had not violated any Wikipedia policy and in fact that what I had done was common. Slrubenstein
 * Rebuttal of Slrubenstein's explanation: In a third event, Slrubenstein posted to four user talk pages (see User talk:FT2 and User talk:Wesley and User talk:Jayjg and User talk:Jwrosenzweig), with the more neutral of these editors receiving named sections and the more POV editors sections entitled "help?" - Amgine 01:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You may also like to see User talk:AndyL, and User talk:John Kenney, and User talk:Mpolo, and User talk:Pedant, and User talk:Jwrosenzweig, and User talk:Jayjg. Note, that User talk:The Rev of Bru was not at any point asked to get involved by Slrubenstein. CheeseDreams 19:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * An additional incident after opening this Request for mediation: on a consensus vote which was not decisive in any direction, contacted User talk:AndyL, User talk:172, and User talk:John Kenney to gain votes for his text. Amgine
 * I regard such behaviour by Slrubenstein as absolutely abhorrent, and would now like a decision via arbitration to prevent any further such incidence of it. CheeseDreams 21:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just discovered another comment of this gerrymandering kind added to User talk:El C (and hidden by deleting from the talk page - it is only viewable via the history). CheeseDreams 22:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yet more of this at User_talk:JDG CheeseDreams 20:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, Slrubenstein proposing his own version of a paragraph for an article, when a consensus paragraph was otherwise being hammered out. The paragraph he propose completely ignored the problems raised during the consensus paragraph's creation, and in fact completely ignored the consensus paragraph. The exact response by Amgine to him on this issue was My specific objection was you chose to discard an extent compromise text without attempcting to improve it, and instead substitute your own.

Further, re-raising slurs when the other contributers had moved away from that issue as it was not relevant.

In addition, going to mediation without notifying either myself, or Amgine.CheeseDreams 21:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Amgine is the only one of the three editors currently active in this dispute, to submit a version of the article which he thinks is the best one, User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 currently that's about where the consensus building attempt stands. As I see it, Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein are very close to agreement on substantial portions of the text, and I believe a good foundation for consensus would be for the two of them to also propose their own version of what the best article would be.  The two of them do not seem inclined to listen to each other and I think mediation would be a poor solution, arbitration might be more suitable.  All 3 of the above have made substantial contributions to the article and to the discussion.  User:FT2 was also involved in discussion, attempting to assist the goal of reaching consensus... FT@'s comments might well be solicited on this.Pedant 22:23, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Comment on CheeseDreams and SIRubenstein:
 * Personal view, as mediator to date:
 * I think the above two cases are at heart not necessarily huge. I've seen attempts by both to learn to moderate their mannerisms - at times each has worded things unfortunately and upset the other. I would support mediation rather than arbitration as a first step, because its more about learning not to be offended (personally) and step back a bit, than "who's right or wrong". Both need it pointed out how they can put a foot wrong, and to see how each has helped towards this disagreement in some ways. Both are keen on their subjects, and with a little discipline on whats valid and how to better approach it, even the few areas they dont agree might be easier resolved.


 * What I see as key issues are:


 * Both CheeseDreams and SIrubenstein have at times used phrases that "pressed buttons", and have sparked the other. Both can be a bit sensitive to buttons being pressed. So they have without meaning to do so, provoked each other and this has undone their good work and damaged trust they might have had.
 * They have not yet established a common understanding of any real difference they may have, so they don't know where the other's coming from and at times guess (wrongly) or assume (poorly). At times each has shown a "Christian" background which has pushed POV strongly into the debate and at times each has been strictly neutral. So there is a feel of bad faith, as they haven't yet worked out if they're dealing with neutral or POV. Each assumes they are dealing with bad faith and POV. Actually it would be more accurate to say each is dealing with sensitivity, lack of thought and accidental button pushing.
 * There are strong POV's expressed, but I think both would listen to other wiki-ists and be guided and both have shown by their talk to date that any POV issues they have are not fanatical ones - they can be worked round by mediation and asking questions before assuming problems. "How does that help?" or "What's the importance of that?" are good ones.
 * They get tangled up in irrelevance, and what's often "clinically accurate" is taken personally.
 * Simple example #1 (no discussion needed): a comment was made meaning "shouldn't a Jewish source be checked", became badly worded and escalated into a comment to the effect that only jews know about synagoguies is a bit of a racist assumption, and so we get allegations of racism. This is banal and both should refuse to engage in it.
 * Simple example #2: A comment of disagreement by one becomes a show of bad attitude in the eyes of the other, and a question by one becomes an accusation in the eyes of the other.
 * Instead of tackling point at a time and resolving it, they try to debate on all fronts simultaneously, so nothing's ever finalised. They should (my opinion) discuss one select area, put it to bed, move on to the next. This would be far more satisfying and productive.
 * There has been POV. There has been irrelevance. There has been argument over how big "Jesus and his story" should feature in what is basically supposed to be a background description. These are the key issues, and in my view, resolvable if they wished. Their views on them are actually quite close looking from here.
 * Hope that helps. FT2 22:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am autistic. I cannot not think on all fronts at once. CheeseDreams 23:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that FT2 has basically the right idea here. As an involved party, but on the sidelines of this dispute, I see that we constantly get tantalizingly close to consensus on one issue or another, then an unfortunate comment (or unfortunate understanding of a comment) knocks the whole consensus-building back to zero. I think we're really close, and FT2 has shown a lot of patience and willingness to listen in trying to get the issue settled. It should be noted, that the dispute, while centered on "Cultural and Historical background", perhaps, extends onto two or three other Talk pages of the Jesus series. Mpolo 09:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems from what's been said here, that FT2 has been doing a good job of mediating. I wonder whether it might be better to continue with him as mediator rather than introducing a new person to learn all the complicated aspects of this case. While he is not an official mediator, I see no reason why he shouldn't continue to work with you if that is likely to give the best result. Whether you continued on the talk page, or move to a private venue for this would be up to you. However, if this is unacceptable to some or all of you, then we could look for a mediation committee member to help instead. -- sannse (talk) 13:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Although I have personally appreciated FT2's actions in this situation, I have the following concerns, and other concerns, as to why it might not be appropriate for him to be mediator:
 * Slrubenstein has disregarded some or all of FT2's RFC. See Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus versus Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus and much of Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus
 * FT2's moderate restatements of positions of consensus which have been approved by vote are included in the compromise text of the article which Slrubenstein disputes. See User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 and related votes commented in the wikitext, especially User:Pedant:CaHBJv1.
 * Since I am very concerned that a compromise on this article be completed and the article be reopened for editing, but am relatively new to Wikipedia, I am not sure if these concerns would prejudice the question. - Amgine 15:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My concerns are (a) continued incivility (b) refusal to apologise (c) Refusal to submit to consensus unless it is pro-his POV. CheeseDreams 19:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediators
It is true that I have treated FT2 as another editor and contributor, not as an official mediator with special authority. It is true that I have objected to a number of his statements, but only because I think the reflect a misunderstanding of the history and historiography of 1st century Judea and Galilee, and because he supported statements of fact that I believe to be wrong and unverifiable. These are substantive issues that bear on the accuracy of the article, and I think every editor has an obligation to raise these issues on talk pages. If we are to have a mediator whose task it is to mediate disputes over content -- substantive claims over Jewish/Christian history, that person has to have some basic understanding of historiography and the standards of historical research and scholarship. In this case I would prefer a mediator other than FT2 (BUT I must emphasize that I mean no disrespect to FT2 as a member of the Wikipedia community, and wlecome his continued comments on the page in question). My request for mediation is motivated by a more "meta" concern, which has to do with the way I, Amgine, and CheeseDream interact, and the process that has evolved on the talk page. I do not think that simply voting on issues is an adequate or appropriate solution. It doesn't matter whether 100 people vote for my version, or 100 people vote for Amgine's version, if the two versions are unverifiable and inaccurate. We need a way to address the issue of verifiability and accuracy. I thought Danny would be a well-situated mediator, but see he has resigned. I think Bcorr would be a good mediator as well. Slrubenstein


 * Comment on Slrubenstein's note: Due to Slrubenstein's history in this mediated topic of selective notification (See above rebuttal this section) for people sympathetic to his POV, I would feel very uncomfortable with any mediators he would suggest. - Amgine 18:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding about the role of the mediator here. Mediation is not arbitration and the mediator will not made decisions on content. Nor are we able to make policy decisions on issues such as how consensus should be measured. What we can do is try to guide the discussion, promote understanding and try and find areas of compromise to soothe disputes. But that said, mediation is still a useful process, and if you prefer an official mediator, that's fine.

I think Danny may still be available (the mediator list may be out of date) and Bcorr is still around too.

Amgine and CheeseDreams - do you have any preferences as to mediator? Please don't disregard Danny and Bcorr because Slrubenstein suggested them. The choice of mediator needs to be someone both sides can agree to - so it will have to be someone that Slrubenstein trusts, as well as someone you can trust. I suggest looking at Danny and Bcorr's user pages and contributions to see either is someone you could work with. I can recommend both of them as non-biased and effective mediators. -- sannse (talk) 19:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the role of the mediator, and that the process is not arbitration. I am also aware of Slrubenstein's prior actions which appear to me to be mediation in bad faith. Having reviewed the two suggested mediators, I would feel very uncomfortable with User:Danny who has created articles with topics potentially related to this discussion (which I have not reviewed, but assume Slrubenstein has.) I do not have any specific objection to User:Bcorr, but readily admit the fact Slrubenstein has suggested him raises my index of suspicion.
 * I am not familiar with the mediation committee members, and could not reasonably suggest any single individual, although I appreciate your approach to this discussion. Therefore I suggest User:Sannse as mediator. - Amgine 19:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we cannot have User:Sannse then, What about User:Angela? I think she would be above suspicion.

I think User:Llywrch, User:Dante Alighieri, and User:Cimon Avaro would be neutral too. I have chosen these as they have not been terribly involved in religion based articles, and therefore are unlikely to have strong POV on the subject matter. CheeseDreams 23:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll be willing to help in this matter, but with a couple of caveats:
 * I have contributed in the past (hopefully in a substantial way) to some of the religion articles: see the history of Paul of Tarsus, Saint Peter, Acts of the Apostles, Didache, and James the Just; I grew tired of this topic, & have been working in other areas in recent months. If I have a bias, it would be shown in those articles.
 * Right now I find myself short on time, so I may end up slowing down this process.
 * If neither of these presents a problem for all involved, I'll be happy to see what I can do to help resolve things; however, I would need all parties to explicitly agree, knowing the above. -- llywrch 23:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I accept Llywrch's offer for mediation. - Amgine 05:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I accept Llywrch's offer. CheeseDreams 19:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sidenote by FT2

 * (Side note to some of the above - if I had taken offence, I would have said so, and clearly, and explained why. I appreciate that some of SIrubensteins comments looked to CheeseDreams as attacks, but I didn't take them that way nor do I believe they were. They were differences of opinion, and for the most part accepted in perfectly good faith. The few times the debate has gone off the rails, were as likeloy as not to be either. But be assured, I don't feel either party has acted wrongly towards me, and neither should worry if that was the case. FT2 02:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

More seriously, this is too long. It has become an extension to the debate, and thats not what RfM is for. Neither party is majorly "at fault", both are anxious not to be blamed for things they didn't do, and fear the other is guilty of bad faith. But I think from the outside I can speak for all those involved and say to both, you are not seen as "the villains", either of you, by others. You both care a lot for this article, you haven't figured out how to work or trust together, and thats why we are willing and hopeful to help you fix that. You have to do a few things to make that possible though, and here they are:
 * You have to both assume that we know whats gone on, have read or can read the pages, are experienced in personal friction issues and NPOV or bad faith. So we know where you both stand, and explaining or refuting is not needed - we're ignoring exaggeration by either side already, without being asked.
 * You have to allow that we are not going to be easily swayed to attack either of you or buy into every negative thing said. So again, relax. Constant reiteration actually is not helpful, nor is "he said / she said".
 * We need to do this steop at a time. 'd like yes no or short comments to the following:
 * Mediation - I am willing, sannse is, danny, angela, several have been mentioned. Pick someone between you whom you feel you could trust to be fair.
 * I would prefer that the mediators suggested decide among themseleves who has the time, interest, and confidence that they can handle the different threads of this. I'll accept whatever choice the mediation committee makes Slrubenstein
 * Article - some good edits have been agreed. But as long as they arent posted, they remain constantly discussed. I would like to trust that we are close to agreement on several topics, and ask for a gentleman's agreement: if the page were unprotected, so it could be brought up to date as we agreed wordings, step at a time, would both of you be willing to agree not to edit in any major way, unless by explicit agreed consensus?  And that if whoever was mediating reverted an edit as it seemed likely to cause problems, you would not re-revert? FT2 02:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am njust not sure how this would work out practically. In principle I agree, but there are many issues where CheeseDream and Amgine claims there is a consensus, and I believe there is none.  There are some cases where you or others claim we are in agreement or very close, when I feel there are still basic issues that have not adequately been addressed.  OF course, if we can go through specific edits step by step, make changes one at a time, I am fine with that. Slrubenstein

Choice of Mediator

 * I think the last of these questions is better dealt with once mediation is agreed - but I agree we should concentrate on getting the mediation started rather than on extending the argument here. First lets deal with the question of who should mediate.  I'm afraid I'm not available for this one beyond these initial stages, but others have been suggested.  Amgine and Slrubenstein what are your thoughts on the names CheeseDreams mentioned? -- sannse (talk) 15:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * With the caveats mentioned above, I do not have the information to make an informed decision and would accept a mediator agreed to by the Mediation Committee. - Amgine 16:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (a) Would you accept any of my choices?
 * (b) Do you have any preference?
 * (c) If you have no preference would you accept someone I specifically choose from within the list I gave?
 * CheeseDreams 21:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (a) Yes
 * (b) None not already mentioned
 * (c) Certainly
 * - Amgine 22:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Then we await the 3rd party. CheeseDreams 19:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * N.b. TO THOSE WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS NOT ENGLISH. The grammer of the above discussion in this section implies (correctly) that the questions which I wrote are directed solely at Amgine. CheeseDreams 23:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be frank, I think CheeseDreams puts me in a bad position. He asks three questions, and I have already ansewered (b) by naming two people. What if I had asked these three questions? CheeseDreams has already answered: his answers to (a) and (c) are "no." This is how things stand right now -- he really doesn't want to know my preferences because he rejects them out of hand. What is left to me? I could be petulant and simply imitate CheeseDreams and say that I reject anyone he nominates out of hand. Or I could just let CheeseDreams pick the mediator -- which seems unfair and counter to the whole notion of mediation. I am in an impossible position. HIs refusal to consider my suggestions, and his insistence on having his own way (albeit through a vote!) is emblematic of why I felt we needed mediation in the first place.

I would prefer that the mediators suggested decide among themseleves who has the time, interest, and confidence that they can handle the different threads of this. I'll accept whatever choice the mediation committee makes. Slrubenstein


 * I will only accept one from the list I gave. I would prefer Angela if at all possible. CheeseDreams 22:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally I have never considered democracy to be "Ted Heath insists on getting his own way (albeit by calling an election)"CheeseDreams 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, when you said you were just waiting for the third party, what exactly were you waiting for? Slrubenstein

Just to note: Angela (CheeseDreams' first choice) is not currently available. llywrch has written above to offer his help. -- sannse (talk) 14:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And to reiterate what I wrote above, I will take this on only if everyone agrees to my participation. This is not meant as a threat, just a statement of fact: mediation won't work if all parties aren't willing to participate, & have trust in the mediator. I will not take offence if one side declines my offer. -- llywrch 21:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If a further mediation will resolve this, I'm happy to see it happen. FT2 00:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I note that Slrubenstein has started attacking you too now, simply because you tried to achieve consensus. I have no objection to you joining in the mediation as an offended party if you wish. CheeseDreams 19:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch, if you are willing to slog through the history of this dispute, I will be very grateful. From an earlier comment I believe CheeseDream would prefer you to start looking at the talk page starting November 1. I have no objection to that, I realize it means looking over a large part of this history. Personally, I think if you start with "The New Messaih Paragraph" around November 12, and read everything that followed, you would get a fair sense of the different people and their positions. Frankly, I have been working on this article every day and every day I think it gets bgetter and better -- more informative more NPOV, more verifiable. Yet my experience on the tlak page is increasingly depressing. I honestly feel like I can no longer communicate with FT2, CheeseDream, and Amgine. One question: do you see your task as mediating on content, or on process? Do you see your task as helping us understand one another better, on helping us communicate and work togehter more effectively, or to mediate an actual rewrite of the article? Well, I can't wait for your help, Slrubenstein


 * Slrubenstein, are you saying that you want me to help mediate? At the beginning of your paragraph, you sound as if you want my help, but by the last sentence you write "Well, I can't wait for your help." Frankly, I can't tell if you are agreeing to my offer or declining it.
 * Assuming that you do want my help, I looked over the Talk page you pointed to, & couldn't help but feel ideas I might have expressed on many sides of this dispute. In answer to your question, while I know a bit about the subject, trying to do anything more than to help people involved in working on that article better communciate would only sabotage the end result; & I have to say that both you & Amgine show a fair amount of knowledge about the topic; everyone involved simply appears to have a different approach that has potential. (Perhaps once this dispute has been resolved, I might venture my own ideas to improve this article.)


 * So I'd like to find some way to get the 3 of you talking again. While you state you are hapy with the way your work has improved this article, I would suggest that you try to work with the other people in this dispute because the effort you will need to excert in keeping this article intact will suck a lot of time & energy from you, & make you even more embittered with Wikipedia. In some vital ways, Wikipedia is like a beach full of sandcastles, which can be destroyed with appalling ease; unless we are all in agreement to work together, then all of our work will be lost with nothing to show what was once here.


 * If you would like my help in this matter, let's find a way for the 4 of us to discuss this other than on this Wiki page. And I can set up a subpage in my own User: namespace, or we can discuss this in email. The email link on my home page should work for contacting me. -- llywrch 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept Llywrch's offer of mediation. CheeseDreams 19:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.s. Amgine has also accepted in an earlier section, above.

''I have been contacted by all 3 parties in this case. I would like to conduct this mediation in email, because I think that might help simplify matters. Does anyone have objections?'' -- llywrch 04:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have e-mail.
 * I have no objections to things directed to me being pasted to my talk page, or somewhere in my user space such as User:CheeseDreams/Mediation CheeseDreams 04:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Withdrawal from mediation
On the basis the mediator has become involved in the editing of the article in question, and is determining the correctness or incorrectness of edits offered by individuals involved in the mediation, I feel it is unlikely this mediation will result in a mediated end to conflict. Therefore I am withdrawing from the mediation. - 19:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The above comment was made by Amgine -- llywrch 02:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Dr Zen and User:LGagnon
Dr Zen has been harassing me for the past few days, making personal attacks and libelous statements about me on Requests for adminship/LGagnon and Talk:Stephen King. The former page is an a more serious matter, since he is trying to sway the vote on that page by lying about my actions and words. Action to solve this dispute is needed immediately, as he is making the election process unfair by convincing voters to vote against me on the grounds of his lies. I would contact Dr Zen himself to agree to this mediation, but he has refused to listen to anything I post on his talk page. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I absolutely reject these allegations. The points Dr. Zen has raised on LGagnon's RfA are entirely reasonable.  Dr. Zen said himself: "It's not personal. If next time you're nominated, your record shows more consensus focus, I'll be the first to support you." BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;<b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And, further, I invited LGagnon to remove any comments he/she felt were prejudicial to his/her election. You'll note that he/she refused and claimed I would "flame" him/her for it. What can I do? I cannot even make good-faith approaches to resolving this editor's problem with me. I have walked away from the conflict. I do not have the pages in question on my watchlist and I do not contact or deal with LGagnon. I do not see how I'm harassing LGagnon. I'm not even in contact with him/her! Dr Zen 00:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Here are two cases in which he has libelled me (copied exactly from his comments):
 * Contrition and a repeated commitment to consensus would have been far more persuasive than being adamant that censorship is a valuable tool for an editor. (from his vote comment in Requests for adminship/LGagnon)


 * Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit. (from Talk:Stephen King)

There are more, and you shouldn't have difficulty finding them. Might I add, I don't think it's fair for you, a user who already has biases against me, to be deciding this; after all, a mediator is supposed to be unbiased. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:44, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Blankfaze isn't a mediator, he is talking here of his own opinion as another contributor. I think it might be useful to discuss this request in real-time.  Do you use IRC at all? or someting similar?  -- sannse (talk) 14:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)


 * I have Gaim if that helps (apparently it does IRC, but I've never used it for such before). I'm not sure if I'd have time for an IRC chat though; I'm kind of busy this week, so it might be better to handle it here. Whether it's here or on IRC, we should look into scheduling something soon. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 05:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * The time issue is part of what I wanted to discuss. Mediation is that is generally a slow and time-consuming process.  Remember that mediation is an attempt to discuss the dispute between you to help you reach agreement and resolve your differences.  It's not a process of judging between you, and a mediator will not give out any sort of ruling.  So it takes discussion and patience.  I realise that you want a fast result because of the time limits of requests for adminship, but mediation cannot prevent Dr. Zen expressing his opinion there, only work with both of you to help you solve the difficulties you have with each other.


 * But, that said, it may be that mediation would be helpful to you both. I've invited Dr. Zen to come to this page and indicate if he is willing to take part in mediation.


 * I've looked at Gaim, and it seems to work fine for IRC - so if you do want to talk about any aspects of mediation, I am usually on #wikipedia on and off until about midnight (GMT). -- sannse (talk) 21:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Dr Zen has declined mediation. Mediation is always a voluntary process, so we can't help further in this case.   I will archive this request tomorrow. -- sannse (talk) 22:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. Dr. Zen just attacked me on Talk:Yasser Arafat and accused me of bias when all I did was point out the flaw in his argument.  Apparently, he has a history of making personal atttacks against users, including Geogre, LGagnon, and myself.  --Viriditas 02:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you following me around? How sweet. I like chocolates (plain and I prefer hard centres). You were very rude about my argument, which you did not actually address, and you are without question biased. It's not an "attack" to say so. You are biased in favour of Arafat's biographers over Arafat himself, and I am biased the other way.Dr Zen 02:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume good faith and attribute your comments to Hanlon's Razor.  You made a personal attack when you accused me of bias without providing evidence for said bias.  Attributing claims and documenting evidence for said claims is not bias: It's called verifiability and it's standard Wikipedia policy.  In the context of your attack, you made an ad hominem argument.  I am in the process of responding to your newer comments, but I strongly suggest you discuss the issues and refrain from making any more personal attacks given your editing history. --Viriditas 03:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your suggestion and I will from now on use Hanlon's Razor in all my dealings with you. Thanks for directing me towards it.Dr Zen 03:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. It's from Please do not bite the newcomers. You may want to keep it bookmarked for frequent reference.  See the last paragraph: Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, comport yourself as if they're not. By being forgiving, instructive, and respectful, you come away with much more dignity, and you reflect well on our project. --Viriditas 05:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'll be needing that particular paragraph, since I do not assume that everyone who disagrees with me is a troll, but I thank you in any case.Dr Zen 05:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha
Please assist us in Aisha. OneGuy is insisting that his apologetic view on Aisha should get first mention before the more mainstream views. (unsigned by 168.209.97.34 - sig added by sannse)


 * Have you tried discussion on this issue with other users at Requests for comment? If so, please leave a link here to the discussion.  In not, and if discussions the talk page have stalled, that seems a useful next step in this case -- sannse (talk) 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed and Anthere
I am ready to recognise that my action was not the best on the AC election procedure page. And it is absolutely okay for anyone to restore other people comments. However, I do not think my edit deserved to be called vandalism and I really strongly resent it. Xed is calling me removing other people comments vandalism, but his removing my comments are apparently not vandalism. Xed refuses to put back my comments for the reason I am a vandal and my comments are only acceptable on the talk page. I do not see why other people comments are acceptable on the page while mine should only be in the talk page. I think that whatever the actions done by other editors, we should try to consider they were acting in good faith and Xed is not offering me this. I would like that people talk to him and try to find an agreement about this. I would like first either that my comments are restored by Xed himself, second that he agrees I am not a vandal (even if of course he may completely disagree with me removing other people comments). If I am a vandal for this action, so is he in removing mine. I think his behavior is totally unwikilove, and meant to preserve a very unwikilove page, and it is really upsetting me. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've left a mesage for Xed, asking him to join us on this page.


 * Anthere, do you have any preferences as to mediator? I think, given the location of the dispute, that it might be best not to choose someone who is currently running for arbitrator (that is, not Ambi, Ed Poor, Grunt, Neutrality or me)


 * Xed, will you agree to mediation? Do you have any preferences about who should be your mediator?


 * Regards -- sannse (talk) 22:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No - Xed 22:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now been told that Xed is widely considered a troll; so I guess calling people he disagrees with "vandals" is a pretty normal behavior for someone such as Xed, and pretty much nothing should be expected from him. This request is consequently bogus and I will from now adopt toward Xed the proper behavior suitable with trolls.

I kinda hope the future arbitration committee will find ways to clean up the english wikipedia of some of these impleasant personalities.

- Ant