Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 14

User:Jewbacca vs. User:Auto movil
Jewbacca is litiginous, involves admins, and is skilled in gaming the system. He has accused me of some crime involving saying bad things about him on his Talk page, the details of which I don't fully understand. He threatens heavy sanctions, and may construct a case based on edits or whatever -- I dont know what. I want this to stop, and specifically for Jewbacca to be prevented from attacking and threatening people in the future. This is a user who keeps his hands mostly clean, yet engages in constant battles with other users, most of which he seems to win by seeming 'innocent.' The battles are constant, and I want them to stop. Auto movil 06:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note I filed an RfC on this user at Requests for comment/Auto movil --Jewbacca 07:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I will take on this case, and I ask both parties to contact me. Danny 17:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, Saint Andrew, Jesus
These are NPOV dispute. Some Administrators threaten me to block me. Help! Rantaro 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you sure mediation really is what you are looking for? Have a look at the top of the page, and especially WP:Dispute resolution. I am not sure it is, and neither am I sure that mediation could help you. A WP:Request for comment would seem the way to go, if you don't think the discussion works. -- AlexR 06:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Andre and Sannse seems to be mediators, too. Could you mediate with mediators? Rantaro 09:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Obviously I can't respond as a mediator to this request but a couple of points - Andre is an advocate rather than a mediator. I'm a mediator, but that doesn't affect the process - it just means I cannot mediate in this case. For the rest, someone else will have to respond. -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I am willing to step in and mediate if you can specify with whom you want to mediate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I don't know what the current status is with this mediation, but having intervened in an earlier situation involving Rantaro, & having read the relevant sections of the talk pages of these articles, it appears to me that whenever Rantaro gets into a disagreement with another party, she/he becomes worried that she/he will be banned or blocked from Wikipedia. Would whoever aids in this mediation determine if my impression is correct, & if so let Rantaro know that we do not ban people simply for disagreeing with other Wikipedians? (People do get banned as a result of disagreements, but only because they have broken other rules: harassment, excessive reversions, etc., & as far as I can tell Rantaro has done none of these acts.) -- llywrch 20:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs archiving, but don't think it appropriate for me to do so. Could another mediator please assess and archive? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 23:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Adam_Carr
I am requesting mediation with respect to a series of short biographical articles I wrote, in order to fill red (no-destination) Wikilinks on other articles I was editing. These are articles on primarily 19th Century Australian personalities who were active in the republican or independence movements. Each article was labeled. Adam made useful contributions (with an occasional excess of POV); however, he also deleted most of the essential contributions I made to the original articles. I asked for an explanation, and he said, in so many words, that he was doing it out of spite, left over from previous edit conflicts on the Lyndon LaRouche articles (see Talk:William Spence and User_talk:Ambi. I welcome Adam's contributions, but not his subtractions, unless he can make a reasonable justification for them. Let me also say in advance that I would welcome mediation from anyone on the committee, with the sole exception of Bcorr. The disputed articles as of this writing are William Spence, H.C. Coombs, and John Dunmore Lang. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Herschelkrustofsky, please could you let Adam know of this request and invite him to this page to indicate if he is willing to take part in mediation. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 13:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This has now been done. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My position on Herschelkrustofsky is this: He is a self-admitted longtime member of the Lyndon LaRouche organisation, a corrupt, violent, fanatical, semi-fascist cult led by a convicted swindler and notorious anti-Semite. Herschelkrustofsky is also a proved liar and spreader of slanders against the integrity of anyone who opposes the LaRouche cult. His sole interest in Wikpedia is spreading LaRouche propaganda. No self-respecting encyclopaedia project would allow such a person to edit articles, and in my opinion Wikipedia should ban him from further participation. Wikpedia's failure to do so, or to protect serious editors against people like Herschelkrustofsky, Shorne and Hanpuk, is the main reason I have withdrawn from editing all non-Australian articles. Herschelkrustofsky has had no previous interest in Australian history, a subject about which he knows nothing, but has taken to editing Australian articles in order to support the absurd and offensive theory of the Australian LaRoucheites that various figures from Australian history are the ideological ancestors of LaRouchism. It is not acceptable for such a person to be editing Australian history articles. I have therefore written proper articles to replace the ones he wrote, and I have made it clear that I will revert any edits he makes to them. (That goes for Shorne too, who has intervened in support of Herschelkrustofsky in a sort of Wikipedian Hitler-Stalin pact). I do not intend withdrawing from this position. It's about time Wikipedia was forced to choose between the great majority of serious editors and the small handful of cultists and fanatics who are undermining the credibility of the whole project. Adam 05:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Should we take this as a "no" to mediation? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam has confirmed on my talk page that he is not declining mediation - although it's clear he has doubts about how effective it will be. So... if you still want to go ahead, I suggest we look for a mediator.  I am not currently available due to other ongoing mediations, but please both look at the list of mediators on Mediation Committee and let me know if you have any preferences.  We can then see if the mediators are available.  -- sannse (talk) 22:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As indicated above, I have no preference other than to say that Bcorr is unacceptable. I should also mention that the articles King O'Malley and Frank Anstey have now become part of the dispute. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From User talk:Sannse: I have no preference. Adam 01:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I will discuss this with other mediators and try to find one willing to help. -- sannse (talk) 01:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am waiting to hear from another mediator about this case. But with Herschelkrustofsky blocked  for a week, it seems we have time here -- sannse (talk) 22:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The blocking was found to have been done in error, and I would like to proceed at your earliest convenience. --Herschelkrustofsky 17:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The mediator I discussed this with is unable to help at this time. I am currently talking to another -- sannse (talk) 13:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please add Daniel Deniehy to the list of articles included in this dispute. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should the mediation committe prove incompetent, I am willing to serve as your mediator. Lirath Q. Pynnor

An update - I've mailed the other members of the committee and asked if anyone is willing to mediate for you. I hope someone will be able to help. I'm sorry this has taken so long -- sannse (talk) 23:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And now, another month has passed. Do the members of the committee regard this particular case as a suicide mission? --HK 17:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness
It has been repeatedly requested that the existing Artificial consciousness article be shifted to Strong AI. The reason for this request is that artificial consciousness is a general philosophical/scientific problem with mythological and artistic aspects and the heavy emphasis on strong AI in the current text is obscuring this. The occupation of this heading by an article on strong AI could be construed as a manifesto for strong AI. Requests for comment have already been made but there is little progress.User: 80.3.32.93.12.04


 * Please see the talk page Talk:artificial consciousness. Previously, I requested for comment at Request for Comment to prevent possible edit war, after user deleted the whole talk page, and wants to replace the whole article with his text. The possibility of moving the article to Strong AI was discussed before on the talk page, and there was not an overwhelming majority in favor. The parts of the article relevant to Strong AI were already transferred to Strong AI article, artificial consciousness under different names is a separate field (see for example a special edition of Journal of Consciousness Studies dedicated to Machine Consciousness). But the problem is also that user 30.3.32.9 requests a procedure, that is not provided, and cannot be voted for by Wikipedia rules (see talk page), and doesn't want to edit the article normally. The article was trolled in the past, I'm in favor of deleting the article only because nothing can be done against that. I had to suffer the most, trying to protect the article against numerous attempts to delete the whole content, which ended in edit war as people didn't want to co-operate, including pagefuls of offenses against me. But the other users also find it difficult to edit the article because of the fear that violations may continue, whenever one starts to edit the article. At first it was a short article, which I started, that after a lot was added by others, part of which, now transferred to Strong AI, was indeed a text which should belong to Strong AI, as the editors probably had a wrong idea of the subject. What I ask is to do something against violating this article, so that the editors would feel safe to edit the article normally, at least state your opinion, or delete the article if nothing can be done against violations, which would be a relief for me and other editors being not in danger of being offended, for just doing their work. Please help. Tkorrovi 15:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do either of you have any preference for which mediator looks at this? Angela. 17:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Angela, I would be very thankful, if you would like to mediate, and find a time for this, as you are the most competent mediator in Wikipedia from these who I know. Thank you. Tkorrovi 17:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm currently inactive on the committee since I'm going to have very little access to a computer for most of this month. I would suggest Cimon Avaro, Danny, llywrch, Stevertigo, or TUF-KAT be asked since everyone else is inactive or involved in the arbcom elections. Angela. 19:48, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I will choose Cimon Avaro then, if he agrees to mediate, I contacted Cimon Avaro. Tkorrovi 20:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not know any of the mediators so would appreciate a choice by Angela. The issue here is simply one of classification. I am sorry I upset Tkorrovi by moving the entire artificial consciousness page (as it was 5 days ago) to strong AI (See:
 * [] to see the article adapted for strong AI by simply changing the words "artificial consciousness" to "strong AI"). However, I am not the first person to spot that what was being described as "artificial consciousness" was actually "strong AI". I replaced the artificial consciousness article with the following article:
 * []
 * this opens up the subject and also explains why the previous article was about strong AI. I am a little concerned that Tkorrovi is making a point that artificial consciousness is the same as strong AI although I cannot quite understand why he should feel so strongly about this.User: 80.3.32.95.12.04


 * It is interesting reading Tkorrovi's denunciation of past trolling of the article. Has it occurred to him that people may feel it's content is inappropriate for the "artificial consciousness" heading and this is the cause of the trolling? If he moved this work, that seems to be so important to him, to strong AI then the problem would probably go away.User: 80.3.32.95.12.04


 * Please, I never said that artificial consciousness is the same as strong AI. Also the article is not *my* article, please stop calling it like that, the most of it, especially that regarding strong AI *was not* written by me, see the history. In the beginning of your text you say that artificial consciousness is about systems that are *conscious*, which exactly is not a view all consider correct (some strong AI supporters do), as by arguments of Thomas Nagel etc it is questionnable whether artificial consciousness can be conscious, therefore *artificially conscious* was used instead in the article, as much more neutral term. The argument as I understand in your text is that strong AI is any simulation of consciousness in computers. This is not the only definition of strong AI, there are many definitions and interpretations of strong AI, the narrowest and widespread definition is that strong AI is a copy of human mind, where all the functions of the human brain are implemented, and therefore it is the same as human mind, some suggestions of Dennett also allow to assume this. This is the narrowest meaning, and this is clearly different from artificial consciousness. Also the artificial consciousness article, except the strong AI part now transferred to strong AI, does not assume that AC must be implemented in the computer, or any other particular medium. In the widest sense, considering all possible interpretations, AC may be the same as Strong AI, as well as AI may be the same as strong AI, as well as intelligence may be the same as consciousness, but this does not make the terms, as well as the meanings, as well as the study, the same. Your article also does not contain all the links, quotes, and references, there are lot of these in present article. And most of it is a pure philosophy, which belongs to appropriate philosophy article, not artificial consciousness, which is about implementation of an artificially conscious system. But parts of your article may be appropriate to add to artificial consciousness article, you could already do that, and we could work together much more constructively. The problem is that you unfortunately don't want to edit the article normally, but as a part of your demand, you want to replace the entire article by a text written only by you. Tkorrovi 18:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think our major difference is brought out in your statement that artificial consciousness is about implementation of an artificially conscious system.. I do not think that the 'artificial consciousness' heading is about specific implementations, it is about the possibility of such implementations and should link to separate articles on each type of implementation. Your remark summarises my point neatly, the current article is about a particular sort of attempted implementation (Turing machines).User: 80.3.32.97.12.04


 * It is about implementation, not about a particular sort of implementation. Tkorrovi 10:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will be happy to mediate between the parties if this is okay with them. Danny 10:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine with me.User: 80.3.32.97.12.04

Matthew Stannard admitted himself that he is trolling at Is it enough for arbitration, or how far the things can go? Tkorrovi 11:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any admission. He says, "I would be trolling if the information that I posted was solely to evoke a predictable response." That is an admission of trolling only if he also admits that the information that he posted was solely to evake a predictable response. I see no admission of that. - Andre Engels 12:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this on needs an update. I think cimon is working on it? Can it be archived? -- sannse (talk) 01:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Ambi and User:Everyking
Ambi started an arbitration case against me on the grounds that I should not be allowed to revert articles, and that I should be blocked for expressing my opinions. While she has withdrawn the case against me, she will not apologize for it and says she has only temporarily withdrawn it. I am tired of the atmosphere of threats, insults and harshness, and I feel we cannot continue normal discussion until she acknowledges my right to an opinion and my right to revert an edit I disagree with. Therefore I would like to request a mediator. Everyking 11:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about this. I'm keen to resolve this, and I'd rather not have to take the path of arbitration. I'd rather have worked it out between us, but I don't necessarily mind agreeing to Everyking's request for mediation. However, I'll agree with three conditions: that Tony Sidaway and Johnleemk also participate, that Ed Poor mediates (because he's quick and talented with these sorts of disputes, from my experience), and that Everyking removes the blatantly defamatory accusations above, which deliberately misrepresent a position that I have stated over and over.


 * On the other hand, if I'm going to be accused of "requesting that someone be blocked for expressing their opinions" and stating that Everyking "shouldn't be allowed to revert articles", and making personal attacks (which I have never, as far as I can recall, done in this case), then perhaps we'd better proceed straight to arbitration, where evidence is actually required to make these sorts of claims - which he won't be able to produce, because it doesn't exist. Ambi 11:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again I'm not allowed to express my opinions. Nothing's going to arbitration, because I'll simply withdraw from the article and perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole rather than deal with that. Ambi is just using that threat against me to get her way. Everyking 11:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've replied on Everyking's talk page, so as not to lag this page too much. Ambi 11:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree unconditionally to participate in this mediation as a party to the dispute. I think Ambi, Johnleemk and I all have the same grievance against Everyking and if we're all willing that single grievance can be resolved by mediation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) Ambi tells me she has withdrawn from mediation or Everyking has excluded her (I'm not sure which). I have been asked if I would take over mediation. I have decided against. My experience over the past few days attempting to edit Autobiography (album) leads me to believe that I can never work with Everyking because I do not find his explanations for his persistent reverts of other people's edits acceptable or even credible. I refuse to be drawn into a revert war. For the time being, I will simply try to keep away from any article with which he is involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ironically, that single grievance appears to be that I want to talk. Everyking 11:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree to be added as a party to this case. It seems to me that Everyking is overreacting. I think he's editing in good faith, but the problem basically is that he refuses to accept that just because something is verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'm not sure whether mediation would iron this out since I've been trying to communicate this to him over and over, but it's worth a shot. Johnleemk | Talk 12:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I am not an extreme inclusionist who dismisses the importance of fame and notability. But even if I was, I would have a right to my opinion and to not be punished for it. Everyking 13:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course you aren't, but you seem to keep dismissing the fact that nobody except fans who can't have sex without the album care that it dropped to position X in week Y on the charts according to magazine Z from country W. And since when have I sought punishment for you? I haven't even bothered to revert you. Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What kind of logic is that? We have math articles only interesting to mathematicians, biology articles only interesting to biologists... Everyking 14:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference is these people are professionals. Last time I checked there was no such thing as a degree in music chart analysis. Even I wouldn't care to know the exact position of "Hey Jude" on Cashbox's charts on December 12, 1967. Some people orgasm while reading a recipe. Should we cater to them by turning this encyclopedia into a cookbook which happens to feature some other unrelated information? Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are you always talking about sex and orgasms in relation to things like music albums and recipes? I just think it's a little weird. Anyway, of course it makes little difference for our purposes whether we're providing info to professionals or to the common man. Don't you think that logic is a bit elitist? Everyking 15:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Reene provides an interesting related anecdote on her user page. The difference is, these professionals are numerous. However, there are few people who will care about specific chart positions; like I said, we can't accomodate everyone, nor should we. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I note both Ambi and Tony have withdrawn. I'd like to continue mediation if possible, however. Johnleemk | Talk 05:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * After what Everyking said on User talk:Ambi, I withdraw from mediation. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deaf
I've been asked in my capacity with the AMA to request mediation on this page by User:Ray Foster. He feels that many of the changes made to the article recently, and those suggested, are of a detrimental nature to the article, and as he is deaf and the other major contributor has a deaf child the arguments have been quite heated. The nature of the dispute is specifically over the role of cochlear implants, but in general regarding the section of the article on views of treatment. Discussion between the users on the talk page has not been fruitful, and given the circumstances (especially the specificity of the dispute and, at the same time, its somewhat nebulous nature) I felt the best course would be to proceed to mediation. I feel that the only specific requirement is to have an authority come in and offer a way of ironing out the most divisive elements, and I have every expectation that this will prove all that is needed to end this dispute. I have contacted the other user primarily involved, Dcreemer, and have requested his cooperation. Please contact me ASAP on the viability of this request. Wally 07:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that the problem with the article is not limited to a single section. There are several examples of breathtaking conjecture that are demeaning and degrading to culturally deaf people beyond mere ugliness. I would also like guidance on resolving these problems. I have quite a bit of material prepared to address the horrific imbalance in the article. Please do not hesitate to contact me. I fully support the involvement of a mediator and I promise to do my best to bring this issue to a quick resolution. I would like to point out that there only two people involved in this conflict. The other contributor, Dcreemer, was described as a "major contributor" by virture of having initiated a single modification to the article: the creation of a link to an off-site web page. By no stretch of the imagination could such an edit be qualified as a major contribution. Outside of that single edit, this contributor's only input on the article occurs on the article Talk page where he justifies the edit by saying the cochlear implant is "no longer controversial." My rebuttal to that statement brought down a NPOV disclaimer from this contributor and, apparently, he promptly abandoned the article entirely or so it appears since he has not made a single appearence to defend his position since he posted the NPOV.  It's an exhasperating experience. In the first place, the section under contention is a duplicate of the cochlear implant article itself; the very article where Views of Treatment should be addressed - not on the deaf article.  Ray Foster 09:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think Deaf merits mediation, and I'm concerned that Ray Foster may be misunderstanding or misusing the concept of mediation. It seems that Association of Members' Advocates ("AMA", above) exists to advise users on the process of dispute resolution, but I don't recognize the steps RF is following as being part of that process.  Dcreemer doesn't seem to be participating in any dispute and neither does anyone else.  Ray Foster has unilaterally declared a ban on all edits to Deaf, and is personally reverting all changes, ostensibly as part of "pending mediation", but I do not see that described anywhere as part of any known wikipedia process.  I fear RF may be carrying out some sort of unofficial self-appointed article "protection" and I don't agree that such steps are appropriate.  I agree that the issues surrounding deafness/Deafness and treatment are highly contentious and need to be written very carefully to avoid NPOV, but I'm not sure why we're here.  Any user can attempt to rewrite the disputed portions of Deaf and can propose to remove the NPOV flag, whether Dcreemer participates in that process or not... the original flagger's "permission" is not required.  I think we have some article content problems needing to be addressed, but I don't think there is an intractable personal dispute needing resolution, at this time.  I would be happy to assist in working on the article itself, but I can't do that if Ray Foster is going to revert my work.  Can we agree to stand down from being offended, for now, and focus on improving the content?  &mdash;Bsktcase 19:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank Bsktcase for his input. It was not my idea to use mediation at all although I welcomed Wally's suggestion to do so simple to get the ball rolling so I could get back to work. I always believed the problems on the page could be corrected by just getting in a doing it. But I sought help for the simple reason that I didn't understand whether I could remove an NPOV notice without going through some bureauacratic procedure to do so. I'm new (about 3 weeks) to Wikipedia and I didn't want to step on toes and try to rewrite the rules. Nor did I want to spend several days writing a balanced article only to have heretofore silent contributors come back with the criticsm that I hadn't addressed some sacred element and then be accused of "protecting" the article. So Wally got involved as a favor to me and it was he who suggested mediation.  You needn't fear some imagined agenda on my part. If you though I had one you'd be wrong. I reverted your work *only* on the advise of Wally and for no other reason.  It just seems to me that when a prominent comment is posted on the Talk page to refrain from editing, that it would be honored even under the circumstances of it straining the patience of contributors like you and me, who would dearly love to give the article the substance it deserves. I ask that you not make claims about my supposed "self-appointed article protection" until the discussion is actually underway. I'd like to enter into the work without that needless and false claim tainting me.  I look forward to working with you.  Ray Foster 19:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I writing to officially notify everyone that I am declining both advocacy and mediation. After being enlightened by Dcreemer's advocate, Keith, about the various procedures available to resolve editing issues I see no reason at this time to hold up progress on the article for my sake. I've notified my advocate, Wally, of my decision and from this point I'm open to any advice anyone may want to impart as to how to proceed. I'm assuming that since I initiated the request for assistance, I can delete the notice on the page which asks contributors not to edit the article. If this is an incorrect assumption, I humble ask that someone let me know and I will replace the notice. Thank you all for your consideration and assistance. Ray Foster 18:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of the conduction of affairs in a public way, I want to note that I have both received and acknowledged Ray Foster's request for me to stand down and end any proposed mediation. At this time, and apprised now with facts of which I had not previously been aware, I fully agree and concur with this course of action.

I do believe two points should be made to clarify this matter to the uttermost degree. Firstly, I posted a request for mediation regarding the deaf page due to the fact that the dispute was not only of an esoteric and highly-technical nature, requiring (as I then saw it) the personal attention of a designated agent, but because of the personal character of the debate to all parties involved, especially at the time. Requests for comment had not meant with either positive success or any sort of appropriate level of reply, there were too few users involved to make a quickpoll viable, and I felt that all user-based negotiative efforts had been exhausted. It was in this mind that I brought forth this request, first to the parties involved, and then here. In the intervening period, I assisted in the retention of an advocate for Dcreemer, the other party involved, and unbeknownst to me Ray Foster had made personal amends with Dcreemer, thus removing any applicable personal aspect to this dispute and leaving it simply one regarding the article. With that now known, I no longer feel mediation is necessary, nor would I have continued pursuit of this course had I been apprised of this development.

Additionally, at no time did I recommend to Ray Foster to revert comments on the deaf page or demand other users, either myself or through he, to do so. I requested that he "please refrain from editing or commenting on the page and encourage others to do so", which I can acknowledge may have been insufficiently clear. My intent was merely that until some sort of settlement was reach that he not post any more edits that Dcreemer or other users might find objectionable and ask, in order to avoid possible problems, other users to refrain from tampering with the page entirely until the dispute was concluded. I was not aware that Ray Foster had reverted edits (although I did note his request on the page not to edit it further, which I imagined was posted per my advice to him) and apologize for not being aware of this and correcting the error that occured. I am confident that Ray did not do so out of any sort of malice, but rather as he sincerely believed that it is what I had advised and requested, and as my advice was not perfectly specific. I feel fortunate that Keith Tyler, acting as advocate for Dcreemr at my request, discovered what had occured and acted to stop it, as well as to discontinue mediation, which due to Ray Foster's statement to Dcreemer was no longer necessary, the dispute no longer having a personal nature.

I am glad that the situation is proceeding to an amenable development, and thank all those who had a hand in promoting such a result. I merely feel it necessary, as the user opening the request, to restate my intentions and clarify ambiguous issues in the process of closing the request. Wally 21:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert the Bruce vs User:Exploding Boy
Exploding Boy has instigated both and RfC and a request for Arbitration against me. Together with this he has made a number of allegations which are contrived. I believe that the source of this animosity towards me lies in a fundamental difference in POV. His POV position has become even more evident recently. My belief is that he has behaved atrociously and as an admin has brought the office of admin/sysop into disrepute. Through this mediation I hope to reach an understanding with Exploding Boy that he ceases to abuse the systems of Wikipedia as a means to neutralise those with whom he has a POV disagreement. Should the mediation fail I intend to take this issue to the AC with the view of having him stripped of admin/sysop position. - Robert the Bruce 18:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You must be joking. This very post is grounds for me to reestablish the RFA against you.  Exploding Boy 18:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a conflict resolution process which needs to be followed around here. You clearly have issues which you have not addressed through the proper process. We need to give this component of the process our best shot. I am willing ... and you? - Robert the Bruce 15:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times on various pages, and as you are well aware, I have absolutely no faith that mediation with you would accomplish anything positive. As I've said before, there are many reasons for this, especially the fact that your behaviour is not limited to interactions with me but is part of your general "Robert the Bruce" persona. In addition, I observed at least the beginning of your mediation with Theresa Knott and was far from impressed by the attitude you adopted. Can you give evidence of a positive outcome in that mediation? Similarly, the recent notes you've left on my talk page leave me convinced that mediation will not and cannot provice any solution to the problems you cause on Wikipedia. You've made no attempt to convince me otherwise. Exploding Boy 23:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is of course a pity. You seem to have serious issues which you need to work through and I was hoping that through mediation we would be able to face these issues honestly and openly. I believe that such an attempt will be beneficial to not only both of us but the Wikipedia community as well. I will keep offering my hand onthis even if you spurn the opportunity to follow a process of coonflict resolution. - Robert the Bruce 17:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed, Robert, that nearly everybody you have disagreements with turns out, according to you, to have issues, and that these issues surface only when they are interacting with innocent little you? In asking for mediation with Theresa Knott you needed, you said, a mediator "suitably qualified to understand obsessive/compulsive behavior", one "who has experience with disputes involving over-zealous sysops and the misuse and abuse of administrative powers".   I suspect that your current call for mediation is another attempt to forestall the by-now inevitable reconsideration of the Arbitration case pending against you.  It will, I hope, come sooner rather than later.  The evidence against you is mounting daily. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * One tends to tire of the constant conspiracy theories that abound around here. If it has anything at all to do with you EB has attempted to start an AC issue before and was rejected on the basis that he failed to exhaust the dispute resolution procedure before running in tears to the AC. The message was clear no mediation then no AC. I then requested mediation which he spurned and went off in search of a way to bypass the system and came across Raul564 who advised him accordingly. Now he is risking it all on the last thrown of the dice ... and you? What excuse do you have for failing to support the correct use of the dispute procedure? You have something you should share with the community, Tony? - Robert the Bruce 06:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andre Engels and Noisy
Noisy had problems with the way Robbot was working. I have requested him to apologize about certain things in his remarks. He did not react. - Andre Engels 18:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've asked Noisy to let me know here if he is willing to take part in mediation -- sannse (talk) 17:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I will participate. Noisy | Talk 18:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)  By the way, I don't have access to wikipedia email Monday through Thursday.  Noisy | Talk 18:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Talking about Wikipedia email - mine might be outdated. Please use andreengels@gmail.com instead. - Andre Engels 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what's the next step now, and who is to take it? - Andre Engels 16:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in this. The next step is to find a mediator that both of you will agree to work with. I have mailed the other mediators to ask who is currently available and willing to help in this. I hope someone will be able to help shortly -- sannse (talk) 23:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Going through the list, I don't know all names, but there is nobody that I would choose out in a positive or negative vein, any moderator is ok with me. There is one in the list that I think might be biased in my advantage, but I assume that they s/he is in a better position to judge that than I am, and not take this job on their own choosing if they are. - Andre Engels 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any mediator is fine by me. Noisy | Talk 11:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

User:Vfp15 vs Many on Charles Darwin dispute
An edit war has gone out of control on Charles Darwin.

The Early Life section of the article contained this phrase:
 * Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, on 12 February 1809 (coincidentally on the same day as Abraham Lincoln)...

It has been in the article for some time (placed there by someone else, not me) when User:Noisy deleted it, claiming it was irrelevant. I reverted claiming it was interesting. Others joined the delete side and tit-for-tat revert war occured. A compromise was reached by including the coincidence in a new Trivia section. The Trivia section was quickly deleted and the tit-for-tat war resumed. An non-neutral (I thought) RfC was posted and I modified it. The original poster did not revert the modified version. The Trivia section compromise was tried again, and deleted again. RfC has not resolved the dispute.

I feel a group of people has taken over the article. The reason for total deletion of any mention of the coincidence (irrelevance) is POV, but it seems it's OK for a majority to be POV. I have given many many reasons why it should stay in somewhere (it's factual, it's a good time marker, it's culturally significant and gets 4000 google hits, etc.), and I have also accepted compromise (the Trivia section).

I request mediation to help resolve this dispute.


 * Since I am one of the editors that Vfp15 is asking for mediation with, I'll put in my two cents here. This discussion has been going on ad nauseam at talk:Charles Darwin for awhile, so if anyone is interested, they can see some of what has been going on by visiting that page. They should also look at the revision history for the Charles Darwin Page and Vfp15's User contributions.


 * Here are a few comments on Vfp15 review of the discussion so far:


 * Although there has been discussion of a possible compromise of putting the Darwin/Lincoln coincidence into a Trivia section, there has been no final consensus yet.
 * Although a vote has only started, it has been obvious since long before the vote that the majority of those involved in the discussion don't want the coincidence mentioned in the Early Life section near the top of the article, and several have already spoken against or voted against its inclusion in the Trivia section as well. Most have detailed their reasons for not including it in the Charles Darwin article. Between the people who reverted Vfp15's insertion of the info, voted against it, or wrote comments against it, I count 18 people. There have only been two other people besides Vfp15 and the person who originally inserted the info who have reinserted the info or voted for it.
 * Vfp15 has been actively recruiting people on their talk pages to join his side of the argument, but only two person has shown up from that effort (one for, and one against). On the other hand, there have been several people who have shown up from the RfC posting who have added do not include comments or votes.
 * By looking at the edit summaries, I count at least 19 times that Vfp15 has inserted the information. Here is a quote from Vfp15 (before he revised it) "Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day. If you think it's such a small thing, then why don't you take a deep breath and give up?" Plus here is another quote: "I want an arbitration on this, and in the mean time, I insist the fact be included, either in the "Early Life" section or in a Trivia section. You guys decide where." And a final quote: "Sorry, but at this point, there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet. I have asked for mediation and will wait for the results of that."
 * I am willing to accept mediation on this matter, but it probably won't work unless you get the half-dozen or more most active participants in the discussion to also agree to mediation. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 10:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As an AMA advocate member representing User:Vfp15 (a.k.a. Vincent), I want to be included in this mediation process. Vfp15 has been reiteratedly attacked with arguments that don't give any reason for not having a fact concerning Charles Darwin in its article. As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, there must be the most possible quantity of facts about him, obviously avoiding irrelevants as what did he ate in breakfast. This is a somehow relevant fact because it's related to the birth of two great historical figures. Although, it's unacceptable that this led to an edit-war where the attacked person was Vfp15. --Neigel von Teighen 18:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has moved to arbitration and should be archived. -- Curps 16:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)