Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 13

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus and Jesus in a cultural and historical background
This is primarily a dispute between me and CheeseDreams, although others have been involved. In the first article, there is a CheeseDreams kept reverting my work on the article until the page was protected. She also took a huge amount of discussion on the talk page and rewrote it in her own words. As the talk page was getting too long, I archived it, and she keeps putting taking this archived material and putting it back into the talk page. In the second article, CheeseDream simply copied the first (protected) article and gave it a new title. Someone put in a redirect to the original page. CheeseDream reverted that and eight other attempts to redirect it. When I redirected and protected the redirect, CheeseDream accused me of abusing my sysop powers (I have since unprotected it and put in a request for protection). In an earlier version of this dispute, Amgine and FT2 were also involved. At their request, Llywrch was named mediator. Amgine and CheeseDream have since rejected him as mediator. I would like the mediation committee either to choose a new mediator, or to refer this for arbitration. I am sick of this. Slrubenstein 21:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would add John k and FT2 to the dispute. FT2 has stated that if I go to arbitration on this he will support it.
 * W.r.t. Llywrch. Llywrch started stating what were and were not facts (i.e. taking sides) about the article itself -thus immediately offending me and Amgine (offending Amgine so much that Amgine has withdrawn from the whole of this subject area and possibly Wikipedia itself).
 * Amgine is, I assume, no longer part of this, as he has stated his intent to withdraw from this/these articles.
 * W.r.t. the 2nd of these articles.
 * I created it because
 * It was a suggested compromise to do so by one party (who was not myself)
 * I can see a good reason for a page about "historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would have been" (needs a better title)
 * The content was chosen because
 * The 1st page contains 2 versions (in an edit war) - the 2nd of which addresses "the sort of person Jesus would have been", the 1st addresses the background
 * Slrubenstein's text (the 2nd) seems the best starting text for "historical reconstruction ...." out of the 2 versions.


 * W.r.t. my reverting Slrubenstein
 * When unlocked FT2 proposed a text taking into account ALL sides and trying to achieve consensus. FT2 then asked for 48 hours for all sides to discuss the article rather than make major changes to it.
 * Slrubenstein ignored this request and made a major re-write to it.
 * I reverted to the FT2 version so that all sides could discuss the article.
 * Slrubenstein reverted back to his version again ignoring the plea.
 * etc.....
 * The nature of the 1st page as two which of the 2 versions is best is the nature of the dispute.


 * The strength of the problem can be seen in the summary of the talk page (on the talk page, unless Slrubenstein or John Kenney has again deleted the very-important summary from the page and shoved it in another archive) CheeseDreams 21:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * When mediation fails to reach a conclusion that satisfies all, the next logical step has always been seen as referring the dispute to the Arbitration Committee; & I notice that CheeseDreams has at least one dispute before their consideration currently. Unless a someone from the committee is willing to take this on, I would recommend that this dispute be handed to them with a request for prompt resolution. And I wish the best of luck to whomever does try to mediate in this matter. -- llywrch 06:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will put in a request for arbitration, Slrubenstein 17:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Radicalsubversiv and User:Chuck_F
I, Chuck F i'm requesting meditation with Radical, because he seems to have some type of hatred of me, and because of it is constatnly violating the assume good faith policy. And also because his lack of assuming good faith has started to compleatly feel that I should be reverted on sight and asks other users why they are even trying to bother with me (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Improv/lib_draft_dec2004&diff=8123613&oldid=8123530 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Improv/lib_draft_dec2004&diff=8127478&oldid=8123613, along with the edit history for mcjob Chuck F 09:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Chuck is a chronic problem user whom Rhobite, a far more patient individual than I, has already attempted mediation and failed. Chuck's problem is not with me, it is with how Wikipedia operates: one has to follow community norms and work cooperatively with others, rather than constantly waging edit wars to insert one's own POV. If he would like to expand his mediation request to include other users who have reverted him recently, I will consider accepting. Failing that, I refuse, and anticipate filing a Request for Arbitration to deal with him shortly. RadicalSubversiv E 10:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other users who reverted me recently(besides that anon aol ip, who seems to be more robot then human, and would be impossible to request meditation with) have all I feel at least tried to treat me fairly and like any other user and I feel like I can work with them. You seem to have a personal venedetta against me though and keep refering to me as someone only out for bad, which Is why I only made the request on you Chuck F 12:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users, such as Rhobite and Mirv, have made comments to similar to mine. I suspect the real reason you're requesting this mediation is because you spotted me preparing evidence for a new RFA against you. My refusal of mediation stands. RadicalSubversiv E 12:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide page
-- Obviously this is one controversial, hot-button topic, and this is not a request for a user vs. user sort of mediation process but for the idea of someone to honestly and neutrally step in, do away with possible prejudices and look at arguments from both sides to determine a page of true even-handedness. Once determined, this is a page that needs to be locked, as there can be fanatics from both sides.

I'm new at Wikipedia, and I've been clicking around in an effort to learn how the fairness of this page may be resolved. I hope posting here is the right way to go about it. The story is: I hopped aboard on the Discussion section of this genocide page and took issue with many of the points raised within the clearly pro-Armenian article. I traded opinions with one whom I later discovered was the operator of an "Armenian Genocide" web site, and after the dust cleared I felt justified in making changes for points that appeared fairly solid. 10 Nov 2004

The one thing I liked about this page was that at least an effort was made for some fair play. For example, helpful links at bottom were labeled in impartial fashion, e.g., "one point of view," and "another point of view." Since this is such an emotional arena for many Armenians and their sympathizers (who have mainly been exposed to their fairly omnipresent view), I kept fairness in mind and did not perform major edits; I let everything stand, and simply added explanations for the other side of the story.

I had reason after learning of the shocking overhaul (on Nov. 26, 2004) that prompted this request (described below) to check the page's history, and noticed people on both sides went somewhat out of control. For example, a pro-Turk felt free to add a long list of American academicians who signed a statement in 1985; that opened the door to a pro-Armenian's putting up a 1998 statement signed by writers and scholars. There's too much material on both sides to arbitrarily put up dizzying documentation in such a manner, and the purpose of this page should be to present genuine historical facts in an even-handed manner. (Since a genocide devotee evidently wrote and titled this page to begin with, already the rules of fairness had been compromised, as the word "genocide" itself is in dispute.)

Today I noticed some fanatical partisan 68.40.117.214 has stepped in and has done away with this carefully cultivated article almost entirely; furthermore, even the links section has been altered to be completely one-sided. It's difficult to imagine anyone would have the audacity to intrude and totally wipe out a page's history in such a matter. When such zealots enter the fray, there is no point in civilized discussion; a genuinely neutral party needs to step in, restore the former page so that both sides of these events are in place, and lock things up to prevent such unethically dogmatic actions in the future. So where to go from here? : Torque, Nov. 30, 2004


 * This isn't really the place to invoke comments on article content disputes unless there's very specific people involved. I recommend a posting on Requests for comment to attempt to get this issue more well known. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:39, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Neutrality (choice of username)
I raise this in the interests of various community members who have expressed reservations about User:Neutrality's username.

Previous steps:
 * Requests for comment/Neutrality - a RfC was filed in August 2004. At that time, Neutrality was a non-admin. In the words of another:
 * OK. I will archive it. The consensus seems to be: 
 * Neutrality's name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy 
 * Many users would, however, be reluctant to support the current name for a post of authority.Wolfman 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Neutrality - during this (arguably marginally successful) RfA, Neutrality agreed to a suggestion to change his signature to "Neutrality (hopefully!)". This change was likely enough to convince a few voters to change to "support" and led to the vote passing.

Recently, Neutrality has changed his signature, reverting to something very similar to before the RfA vote. In response to a question about this, Neutrality replied:


 * "My sig line is quite fine, thanks. I'd rather not change it. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)"

Also recently, Neutrality has become a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee Election. As he has now come into higher levels of authority, as a current admin and potential ArbCom member, his username is now becoming a disruption. It is my hope that, with the help of a mediator, Neutrality will respect the community and submit for a username change. -- Netoholic @ 04:21, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but have a few questions for you:
 * 1) You said you have brought this in the "interests of various community members who have expressed reservations" about my username. Have any of those community members who actually expressed concerns about my username brought that up recently?
 * 2) You mention that my "username is now becoming a disruption." How so?
 * Once again, thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:38, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * People have expressed reservations since at least August. It is only very recently you became an admin, reverted your signature, and run for ArbCom.  Presumably, those that expressed concerns before still do.  They are free to join this mediation if they wish.
 * An admin with your username is bad enough, but an arbcom member is even worse. Imagine someone names "impartialiality", "indifference", "pacifism".... all are synonyms of Neutrality, which is defined in Webster's as "the quality or state of being neutral; especially : refusal to take part in a war between other powers"  - really inappropriate for someone who wishes to be an arbitrator.
 * Recent changes in your level of responsibility mean you really need to consider changing your name to something more appropriate, as recommended by others many times. Please confirm if you want to participate in mediation on this.  -- Netoholic @ 06:40, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)


 * The username in question seems to me to be POV, and offensive as some of their actions may not be neutral and to claim them as such is offensive to NPOV. Isn't this sort of thing supposed to go in a special RfC section though? CheeseDreams 21:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Netoholic's comment, isn't refusing to take part in a war between other powers but rather act as a neutral party between them exactly what an arbcom member strives for? Seriously folks, this is a username, and while I prefered Neutrality's previous sig, he has not broken any laws of etiquette or claimed (to my knowledge) that his opinions or perspectives are neutral.  In addition, if anyone were to doubt such intentions in his username, they could merely visit his user page where he says neutrality is something he strives for:


 * "Why Neutrality? I picked the username Neutrality not because I think I am always neutral, or that I always am. I picked the username as a constant reminder to me and others that Wikipedia's relevance depends on it being a neutral resource."


 * Anyone who wants to submit themselves as an example of mistaking simply from a username that Neutrality holds god-like powers of NPOV feel free to do so. Until we get a significant amount (even like 3-5) of people who actually were tricked into thinking his perspective is neutral from his username alone, I say this is a bunch of hogwash. --kizzle 23:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think mediation can help here. Name changes are dealt with via Requests for Comment. If you feel that the situation has changed sufficiently, then I see no reason why you can't open an RfC again. But given the result last time, and the confirmation of this consensus with the admin request, I doubt there will be any change in the community view now. If there is a general perception that Neutrality's user name is a problem for an arbitrator, then he won't be voted in. Again, the community will decide. -- sannse (talk) 19:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:AndyL and User:ArmchairVexillologistDon
Mediation is requested in regards to the article Red Ensign (see Talk:Red Ensign). The specific issue is whether the article should make mention of the fact that in recent years Canadian neo-nazi and fascist groups have increasingly used the Canadian Red Ensign (which ceased to be Canada's national flag in the 1960s) and are now the only organized groups in Canadian society advocating the readoption of the Canadian Red Ensign as Canada's national flag. ArmchairVexillologistDon has repeatedly deleted references to fascist groups from the article and has pledged to continue to revert the article "ad infinitum and ad nauseum". AndyL 08:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello AndyL,

I thank you very much for placing the mediation request. I will abide by the decision of the arbitar.

ArmChairVexilllologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 17:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation is different from arbitration, and the mediator is not supposed to make decisions, but aid you to come to an agreeable outcome yourselves. - Andre Engels 14:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The actual matter I was seeking mediation over has since been resolved while the question of ArmchairVexillologistDon's personal behaviour during the dispute (and after) is now the subject of an ArbCom case. Therefore, I wish to withdraw the mediation request. AndyL 05:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Reene and User:Everyking
I would like to request mediation between myself and Everyking. A conflict between us was sparked as a result of edits I made to Autobiography (album). My first edit was to the Sales and Chart data in an attempt to shorten it a bit. I stated my intentions on Talk:La La before ever touching the page, and Everyking responded by telling me that I would be wasting my time (implying, I assume, that no matter what my edit would be he would revert it). This quickly degenerated into a lengthy argument that eventually shifted to Talk:Autobiography (album). During the process of this arguing I have been trying my hardest to come up with a compromise we can both accept but have been met with hardline opposition on his part. At one point I made a large edit to the album article, documenting each of my changes and posting them on the Talk page for discussion and dissection. Response to this from other users was positive and they agreed it was a useful change to the article, but it was reverted repeatedly by Everyking. Every edit I have attempted to make since then has been reverted, despite the fact that I have altered them in an attempt to compromise with his demands. His only "compromises" have been to demand that I not touch the article save for one very minor thing (such as removing one quote, in his own words) and he has refused to even acknowledge any other compromises that have been offered. In the process of his reverts Everyking has broken the 3rr three times. He has repeatedly made abusive statements about me and my edits in his edit summaries, has been extremely snide and rude on talk pages, and has called me various nasty names (such as "troll" and "vandal") on no less than four other users' talk pages, even asking one person to ban me for supposedly "vandalizing" the album article. I admit I have been uncivil myself at times, but nowhere near the degree he has (the worst on my part IMO was "Pick an edit and start talking or shut up and stop bitching", something I promptly apologised for). I am at a complete loss for what to do here. I've attempted to come to a middle ground to no avail. I'd appreciate any help here so we can finally resolve this dispute. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 07:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I made no implication that I would revert Reene no matter what her edits were. I don't judge people on the basis on their edits and then go on general campaigns against them or anything like that. I simply made it clear that I wouldn't tolerate removal of information from the article, and I stand by that. Note that Reene also seriously misrepresents my compromise offers. I asked that she discuss major, controversial changes on the talk page before making them, and she has absolutely refused. What am I supposed to do in a case like this? Note that I'm one of this site's most active editors, confirmed as an admin with only one dissenting vote (by Wik) back in May, and I've never been in a dispute anywhere near as serious as this with anybody. I think that should say something about the nature of this dispute. Everyking 08:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's possible that mediation can help. Everyking, are you prepared to give it a try?  I won't be able to mediate myself, both because of other commitments and because I have been involved in this discussion already (in a minor way) but I can try to find someone to help.  Do either of you have any preferences as to your mediator?  Regards -- sannse (talk) 22:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)


 * I have no preference but would appreciate you finding someone that could help. Thanks. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 22:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have any serious objections to any of the mediators (aside from you, because you've previously sided with Reene), but of them I know that Ed Poor can be relied on for fairness, because he has been fair with me when we've disagreed politically (and even when I've been unfair towards him&mdash;I remember a case early in my Wikipedia involvement that could've escalated to this level had he not been as reasonable as he was), and I also hold TUF-KAT in high regard. In any case, hopefully this whole process will speed along smoothly, because Reene says she won't continue to discuss matters with me without a mediator. Everyking 23:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have something else that I would like to say here. As a gesture of civility, I would appreciate it if Reene would remove things that might be perceived as making fun of other users from her user page; I object most strongly to her insulting treatment of the person with poor English, and also to her mocking of the Ashlee fan in the VfD excerpt. Everyking 23:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy I've shown you in not continuing pointless arguments here on this page. This isn't the place to mount another campaign against me. Also, as you do not go to the Wikipedia IRC chat you quite obviously do not know where I (and others) are getting amusement from these excerpts. You are making more bad-faith assumptions. Please stop and let a mediator handle it. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 01:07, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I repeat my request. Everyking 06:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've left a message for Ed to see if he can help -- sannse (talk) 19:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help. I just hope I can overcome my pro-Japanese bias sufficiently (I'm a sucker for anyone who signs their name in katakana!). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Having you mediate is perfectly fine with me. After all, anybody with a sound appreciation for Japanese linguistics can't be all bad. ;) Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 22:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, and I don't even know what the next step here is, but I wish this could hurry up a bit. Reene has no reason to hope so, because Autobiography (album) is protected on her version, but I do. I'm tired of having my work put perpetually on hold, and seeing the article stuck on a version that I regard as utterly unacceptable and incomplete. Everyking 15:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is NOT protected on "my version". For one, the edits I originally made to the article were to almost every section, and the only thing I changed about the article before it was protected was the sales and chart data. Next, it isn't my version because it ceases being mine once I submit it. One of the reasons I believe we've come to this point is because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that once you submit something to an article it is no longer yours and you do not own it. That said, I'll continue patiently waiting for Ed, since he's doubtlessly got other work to do that doesn't involve listening to petty squabbles. The article has several things in it right now that I do not like but you don't see me saying "it's protected on HIS version! Hurry up!". Calm down, seriously. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 07:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * When are you going to remove the insults from your user page, Reene? Everyking 13:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And that stuff about me thinking I own articles, isn't that what you'd call a "bad faith assumption"? The very suggestion is downright silly; you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody more supportive of the wiki concept than me. Everyking 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Note also that this is somewhat disingenuous coming from Reene, who does not even like the subject matter and has no actual interest in it. Of course it can naturally be expected that I care a whole lot more about being able to work on it again. Everyking 03:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is still an active mediator on this case (or even if there isn't), please note that as of December 12 I will be on vacation until January 9th or so. I may be online once or twice during this time but it's unlikely my schedule will be flexible enough to arrange any sort of remotely lengthy discussion. Reene&#9998; 10:18, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm back. I'd really like to get mediation started and over with to get this whole mess behind us. Any medium is acceptable though I would prefer IRC if possible. &rarr;Reene&#9998; 07:04, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Viking Viking age Scandinavia
NPOV dispute. User dab also commit edit war instead of trying to reach NPOV on discussion page. I will not go into edit war, or follow his commands of shut up, stop etc, but want this and similair pages to reflect a modern view on the topic, including a clear explanation why all scandinavian people are defintely not descendants to vikings. The article could reflect different views, giving much more information and knowledge to a reader, but this is being restricted presently. I am not sure how to continue work on the subject, since I do not want to commit edit war myself. I am willing to make my contribution to those pages, backed up by historical sources, if I may do so without being accused of being a troll, told to shut up etc.Dan Koehl 14:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it is a terminological issue, English vs. medieval English/Scandinavian use of the word, the intricacies of which User:Wiglaf and I have patiently tried to introcuce Dan to. However, he refused to listen and credited Wiglaf with "the most stupid behaviour I ever encountered on the vikipedia.",  resulting in Wiglaf walking away and me asking him to either listen to what we have to say or shut up. Read Talk:Viking (and Talk:Viking Age, User talk:Dan Koehl). The "edit war" consists of my reversion of this great edit, where he copied an entire section about medieval naval technology from Viking as the first section of Scandinavia :o) I had suggested to Dan he create a section at RFC, and he has not told me that he listed the 'case' here (I found out from his edit history). I will take a break from the article now and see how it looks in a day or two.dab 16:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like one that needs more comment from the community first. Please try Requests for comment first and see what other contributors think of the dispute. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 19:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, thank you. (Have not called Wiglaf anything, only made comments about article) Here is a loggbook.Dan Koehl 20:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a request for comment could be helpful here. Dan has another definition of 'Viking' than a few other of the writers of the article. Having more people give their opinion will not change that. - Andre Engels 13:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of the Request for Comment in this case would be to encourage others to participate and add more evidence and references - if one side's view of the problem is in error, then perhaps seeing more people argue this can convince where a smaller group can't. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes, and new turn of phrase can make things clearer - that's what I would hope for from an RfC.  If behaviour during the discussion is the issue, that's another matter and more a possible candidate for mediation -- sannse (talk) 23:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theresa Knott (The snott rake) and -Robert the Bruce
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)
 * I am very happy to go through mediation with Robert. I offered a while back and he refused. I'm glad that he has changed his mind. Any mediator is fine by me. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * At the time I believed it was important to attempt to break contact with you (and thereby the deeply disturbing close attention from you I was receiving) and as such at that time mediation was not the right thing. It worked for a while but now you are at it again. I am hoping that this mediation help to break this apparent obsessional attitude you have towards me be it either voluntarily or enforced through Wikipedia. You need help Therea. - Robert the Bruce 23:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Could either of you provide the mediation commitee with links to specific instances of events that brought on this mediation request? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

What caused Robert to suggest mediation at this point is what happened recently on clitoris. User:DanP edited the article and included a paragraph on piercing the clitoris. Robert reverted the addition with the following edit summary &#8220;Sorry Dan but I don't think that adds to the quality of the article ... a bit more research needed maybe?&#8221; he was challenged on this revert by  User:Dr Zen &#8220;I think the material Robert the Bruce cut was a good-faith addition to the article and was perfectly valid. Does Mr the Bruce think that people do not pierce any part of the clitoris? Does he think no one stretches it? If he does not, then he cannot be opposing the text on the grounds that it is not factual.&#8221; I commented that the removal of factual information from an article with explanation on the talk page amounted to vandalism in my book &#8211; at this point Robert replied that he wanted mediation &#8211; (yet failed to answer Dr Zen&#8217;s question as to why he cut the material) To be honest &#8211; I don&#8217;t think he expected me to agree. I think he was just trying to dodge answering the question. At the moment there is a rfc on Robert (to be found here and a previous rfc on him using his earlier username can be found . Note that on the later rfc I have not endorsed the rfc as I want to see if mediation solves the problem.

Another page which should shed light on this issue is Use of pics of genitals in articles which has been copied from the village pump]] Here Robert tries to blame me for the results of a poll started by User:Keystroke. He is certainly behaving strangely for someone who believes I am harassing him. Also If I am so obsessed with him why did he write about Robert Blair on my talk page. If you check the edit history of Robert Blair you will see that I have never edited any of those pages, yet Robert the Bruce has. So by posting the above comment on my talk page he is, in effect, inviting me to follow him to a page that I have never edited. Again this is strange behaviour from someone who is in fear of my &#8220;aggression&#8221;.

I view Robert Brooks as an unpleasant, nasty, mean and self righteous troublemaker. He accuses just about everyone who ever disagrees with him as being biased, aggressive, or corrupt. I hope that mediation will convince me that he is, in fact editing in good faith, and will convince him that I am as well. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you are the honesty Theresa. You do really need help. I suggest that the mediator who steps forward has some experience with obsessive-compulsive behavior. I suggest it may be helpful to try to get "behind" the stuff you have listed above to the real reason why I supposedly get up your nose. You see the stuff listed above does not give sufficient reason for your behavior towards me. We must treat the cause and not the symptoms. - Robert the Bruce 05:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This kind of reply is exactly the problem I have with Robert. Notice how he avoids adressing any of the points I made above, and tries to imply that I must be mentally ill. He always does this when his own behaviour is questioned. He still hasn't answered Dr Zen's question about why he cut rather than edited the paragraph on clitoris piercing and he never will. I should warn the MC - whoever takes on this case will be accused by Robert of being biased and unfair. Anyone who knows me here should not take this case as he will use that against them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly Theresa it is always the "other guy" isn't it? This matter is not about the deletion of two lines of crap from an article but rather the latching onto any excuse to bring the "full weight of the law" down on someone with whom you have a problem. I realised immediately that this was the opportunity you were seeking to settle matters and let it ride to see (and importantly let wikipedians see) just how petty and shallow you really are. And boy 'o boy have you shown that. But I guess what really gets up your nose is when your incompetence (as with the issue over pics in the clitoris article) is exposed. Not good to take criticism for being immature and displaying a lack of judgement when one is standing for the AC. Inconvenient. Theresa I have long realised that you have no interpersonal skills and that you "solve" problems here by the threat of RfC's, banning, suspending, being taken before the AC etc etc. Now any sane person wuld know that this is last resort stuff yet that is all you have in your arsenal. Now one of your "friends" is going through th same routine with me as you once tried. The aim of course is to provide evidence that a second person tried to engage me and get me to mend my ways. Do you think any sane AC or any group of people are not able to see through these childish machinations? At issue here is why you are unable to leave me alone. What is it that caused you to single me out for special attention? This is clearly not healthy Theresa. We need to address your obsessive behaviour that leads you to seek the &#8220;death penalty&#8221; for someone with a minor transgression. You are fully aware of the people and the agenda they have decided to hi-jack wikipedia to promote for them, yet you act as a 5th Columnists for their cause. For the record these are the people who you know about but refuse to confront. Why? - Robert the Bruce 05:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

¡Vigilance on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org! Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:22:55 +0000 Â¡Hello! Â¿How Fare You? Well my fellow Intactivists: The circumcisiophiliacs won this round on EncyclopÃ|dia WikiPedia.Org. The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on prÃ|puce and circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism). Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let me just point out to things though: 1I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join EncyclopÃ|dia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up on editing PrÃ|puce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered, that I could not do any good). 2I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass and Dan Blackham dropping in every now and then. Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would just check on our articles weekly and also prÃ|puce, circumcision, and articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at it, you can edit and start other articles. Â¡Editing and starting articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about Laurentia. Â¡E Pluribus Unum! Â¡Thanks! Å¬alabio Â¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover --  Saudi-Mite! Â¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!

The thing is Robert - it's not just me who has a problem with you. You have accused a number of people of being unfair and biased. In fact anyone who has ever taken you to task over your behaviour is biased according to you.Oh and you still haven't answered my questions above - if I am obsessed with you, and you feel uncorfotable about it - why did you come to my talk page and ask me about a new editor Robert Blair. This newbie has never editied a page that I have edited, but he has edited pages that you have edited. Had I taken you up, I would have come to more of the pages on your watchlist, and I would have interacted more with you. So why ask me? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa I am only concerned about how people I respect feel about me. The rest don't add up to a bucket of spit. As to Robert Balir, it was quite obvious that "Robert Blair" had to be a siock puppet (given the amount of wikipedia knowledge he arrived with). It was a test Theresa, and you flunked it. It was clear that you cared not a jot about the behaviour of those you share your bias. You could have checked IP's done a little digging ... all in the best interests of Wikipedia you understand ... but instead you just sat on your hands. Sad. - Robert the Bruce 15:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert - take a look at the list of mediators. Perhaps you couls indicate which of those you respect and if any of them are not to your liking. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa, as you are aware I have requested one suitably qualified to understand obsessive/compulsive behavior to give us a hands up. Otherwise how are we going to deal with your problem? - Robert the Bruce 12:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hereby resign from the mediation committee. What I am seeing recently is a mob mentality spurred on by overzealous RC policemen, which will make it impossible to conduct successful mediations. If that is the case, there is no reason for me to even try. Danny 01:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) One would think this chap had been reading my mail? What on earth do you think he is on about? - Robert the Bruce 15:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert - are you aware that we have aware that we have a committee, whose members can be found here and that if you don't like any on that list mediation cannot go ahead? Please go through the list and indicate if any are not acceptable to you. i have already said that all of them are fine by me. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa I am horrified. I followed your link and this is what I found:
 * No idea. You'd have to ask him. Have you looked at the others? Which on the list of active members are acceptable? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What actions do you imagine describe "overzealous RC policemen"? - Robert the Bruce 05:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa I have no preference or otherwise for those on the list. I would, however, suggest that you declare up front any previous contact, communication, or whatever with any of the members. Finally i have suggested that only those experienced (and qualified) to work with complex personalities like yours should ofer their services. - Robert the Bruce 05:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure no problem:

I think that's the lot. As far as I know, none of them are qualified psychaitrists etc. They are a bunch of volanteers who try to bring piece and harmony here on wikipedia. Which of them are acceptable to you? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi - Rebecca - misfitgirl AT gmail.com
 * I know who she is. She probably knows who I am, but we haven't had much to do with each other here in Wikipedia.
 * Bcorr - Bcorr AT umich dot edu
 * I've certainly talked to this user in the past, but I can't remember when or what over.
 * Cimon Avaro - jheiskan "AT" welho "DOT" com
 * I've spoken to this person privately by email over a case with Mr Natural Health.
 * Ed Poor - Edmund.W.Poor AT abc.com
 * This person has emailed me personally with advice in the past. We have worked together on wikipages and have talked on the mailing list.
 * Grunt - crazyr2 AT shaw DOT ca
 * I've spoken to this person on thier user page over admin matters.
 * llywrch - Geoff Burling - llywrch AT agora.rdrop.com
 * I certainly know this person, but can't remember if we have had any interaction.
 * moink - Theresa Robinson - theresa.robinson AT gmail.com
 * I think I once made a comment about her "nekked" picture. But aprt from that i don't think we have interacted.
 * Neutrality -
 * I backed this user up in a recent RFAr on an admin. There is a recent comment from him on my talk page.
 * sannse - sannse AT tiscali.co.uk
 * I met this user a short while ago in person at a wikimeet.
 * Stevertigo - Email
 * I've joked with this person.
 * TUF-KAT - tucci528 AT yahoo.com
 * I know this person from wikibooks.


 * Ok then, I request that a mediator who has experience with disputes involving over-zealous sysops and the misuse and abuse of administrative powers give a hands up so that we can get on with this process. - Robert the Bruce 18:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You need to indicate if any of the above list of active mediators is unacceptable to you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa you seem unable to help yourself. The guidelines state clearly: "You will then have to agree both on a mediator to facilitate your discussions. Take your time, this choice might be essential." You are once again attempting to badger (nag) me into a hasty decision. This behaviour of yours is central to my request for mediation. We need a cooling off period for you. Perhaps I should suggest that take a break for a few days where you busy yourself in more productive pursuits rather than continuing your vindictive campaign. Further having followed the Sam Spade issue it is obvious that many of the sysops here don't know the difference between a revert and an edit. Yet you continue to (mis)use your admin powers to support your POV. Do you really think people can't see what you are up to? - Robert the Bruce 01:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert I am not trying to badger you. I am keen to get started that's all. I don't believe you are serious about mediation. I think you only suggested it as way to stop me from commenting on your ongoing RFC. In the past week you have not contacted any of the mediators to ask them about their willingness or experience. Nor have you gone through the list above and stated which ones you feel you would not accept. This entire charade is merely an attempt by you to prevent me from commenting on your RFC. If you want to wait - fine. But in the meantime i will sign the rfc and add further evidence. If you don't choose a list of acceptable mediators with one week I will consider mediation as having failed before it even started and withdraw this request. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly Theresa you are not showing good faith in this process as you continue with your threatening attitude. Are you genuine in your commitment to mediation or is this seen as just one more weapon in your armoury to help sage your "control freak" urges? Now we get a dose of childish logic where you (clearly iching to go for the jugular in the RfC) are looking to justify your actions through "Robert made me do this". This is exactly the type of behavior of yours that you need help with in learning to control. We need to remember at the centre of this dispute is your POV bias and the (mis)use of your sysop powers to both protect the excesses from those close to your POV and attempt to neutralise those who are attempting to counter the POV onslaught (which your actions indicate you support). Perhaps we can ask sannse if there is any reason why she would not be able to manage this process? - Robert the Bruce 10:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert you are happy with the fact that I have met Sannse in person at the london wikimeet and wont try to use this fact to try and claim she is biased?
 * Sannse are you willing to take this case? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa for heavens sake will you stop trying to control every situation you get into. You must address this urge to be a "control freak". Sannse will no doubt accept the mediator role only if she believes that she will be able to remain objective. I would strongly recommend that you desist from trying to control this process and allow Sannse the time to respond. - Robert the Bruce 11:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to control the situation. I was making sure that you were aware that Sannse and I know each other a little.I don't want you to accuse Sannse of being biased. You have afterall accused a number of other admins of being biased becasue they didn't happen to agree with you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa the record shows that there are many instances where admins have shown bias. There are a couple of open threads at the moment where this issue is being discussed. The (mis)use of admin powers is IMO a greater threat to wikipedia than of the odd random act of vandalism. Sadly you are IMO one of this problem user sysop/admin types. I have asked a number of time now: "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who Guards the Guards?) Sadly the answer is no one. That is why i maintain there are a number of admins around here who are clearly out of control. Yes theresa, sadly you count among them. - Robert the Bruce 12:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps you'd care to present your evidence the AC? You have accused me of abusing admin powers countless times but you have never, once, backed up your claim with any evidence. I view this as a personal attack. Please back up your claims with some evidence or withdraw them, admit they were lies and apologise. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I have two active mediations at the moment and don't feel I can take another at this point. Theresa, thanks for the message, and thanks for trying to move this on. Robert, perhaps you could name another mediator who might be available - or alternatively, I am mailing the other meditors later today and I could ask then who is currently available. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sannse. Jakew has offered to informally worth with Robert and myself.Hopefully Robert will agree to that and we can resolve the issues without involving the MC. I will keep you infomed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK Theresa, that's fine, thanks -- sannse (talk) 23:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:SlimVirgin
I am requesting mediation, because a new user, SlimVirgin, has launched a campaign to insert propaganda into articles pertaining to Lyndon LaRouche, and has subsequently escalated to edit wars and personal attacks. This is particularly distressing because my previous conflicts with anti-LaRouche editors had been brought to a close one month before his arrival. --H.K. 16:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you requested comment on this issue? If so, please link that discussion here.  Thanks -- sannse (talk) 23:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sannse, I will not accept mediation on this issue, in case that saves you trouble. The ArbCom has already ruled regarding the LaRouche supporters, of which Herschelkrustofsky is one. Because of the entire situation with them, I am considering either returning to the ArbCom to request an update on their previous ruling, or to request enforcement of their previous ruling, depending on which is more appropriate. The Larouche editors have been through informal mediation already (more than once, I believe), and this user is still awaiting formal mediation with Adam Carr &mdash; which shows his disputes with other editors have not been brought to a close as he claims &mdash; as well as being taken to the ArbCom. It is always over the same issue, which is inserting pro-LaRouche material with no references or with reference only to LaRouche publications. I feel another mediation would probably be a waste of everyone's time. Best, Slim 05:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Slim. In that case I will archive this request tomorrow. -- sannse (talk) 21:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Lir and User:Blankfaze
He made a racist and deragatory insult against me; I hope the mediation committee will address this. If not, it will have to go to arbitration. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Come now, Lirath, surely after I explained this to you at length on AIM, you grasp that it was meant in jest and not dergoatively at all... BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??)  22:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. People take offense at "crackerjack"?? Jayjg 23:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * After another conversation with Lir on AIM, I am fairly certain that he either has not read or does not comprehend No personal attacks. I cannot agree to mediation, firstly because it's completely unnecessary and unwarranted, and secondly because the process would be futile as Lir does not understand what is and what is not a personal attack.  BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??)  23:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's at best. At worse, s/he makes cynical use of the policy. Completely unnecessary and unwarranted, yes, though having said that, I do still consider User:Blankfaze as being committed to making crackerjack a feature article! El_C