Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 15

User:Quadell and User:Anthere regarding image deletion.>
Anthere and I have gotten into a conflict recently, in which she has indicated that she is considering leaving Wikipedia. (If I'm reading her comments incorrectly, I apologize.) I have also, because of our spat, considered leaving Wikipedia, at least for a time. We've tried communicating the issue to each other, but it hasn't gone well. (See our talk pages, , and . Also related:  and ) I'm very distressed about this conflict, and I think an independent mediator might help us to work this out. I haven't gone through the RFC process because it doesn't really apply in this case; I'm not complaining about Anthere, I'm just looking for some help in resolving the situation. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Even though I have not been around much, I would be willing to serve as mediator in this case -- assuming that both parties are interested in my offer. I should note that while I have had friendly relations with both Quadell and Anthere, I have known Anthere much better over the years. Having said that, I believe I could be neutral. Please let me know what you think by responding here and via email if that is OK. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 20:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit to being a little nervous that, what with Anthere's long-standing presence and her well-deserved reputation as a valued contributor, it would be difficult for arbitrators to avoid bias. (See, for example, here.) But I will trust anyone who will promise to attempt to see all sides in a neutral way. I'd be quite happy to have you mediate, BCorr. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:01, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quadell, if you are concerned about Bcorr's neutrality in the matter, I know he won't be at all offended if you propose another mediator you would prefer to work with. I think it's fair to say that Anthere is well-known and liked here, but I'd argue that you are too -- certainly Bcorr sounds like someone who respects you both.  Anyway, please post here if there are other mediators you'd prefer to work with.  Please also be sure to notify Anthere on her talk page that she should come here and indicate if she is willing to mediate or not.  I hope this can be resolved soon and happily. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The nervousness was in general, not with BCorr in particular. I'm sure he'll do a great job, and I'd be happy to have him mediate. I've also e-mailed him saying as much. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

The matter was resolved amicably without mediation. Request withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide : Fadix & Coolcat
Coolcat continuously edit the Armenian Genocide entry with false informations, when he obviously has no knowledge of the subject. He police that entry like he police everything that can have anything to do with Turkey. That's entirely anti-academic. He claims that my articles are POV and “Armenian Propaganda,” while there has been 200 pages of discussion at the talk page, 160 pages coming from me, Coolcat has not participated in them, and won't read them, and would prefer editing and editing the genocide entry. If before editing he were to discuss each points, like I have done so(and he doesn't even read here), I would have discussed the matter and even admit if there is POV in some points. I do participate in this discussion because I know of what I am talking about, he obviously don't, he justified his position by claiming that I am unjustifiably attacking a nation... he has shown by his edits to have no clue of what he is talking about.

He brag the neutral point of view, but I have read all those rules myself, and it is clearly stipulated that two positions don't need to be presented equally if the majority in the Academic world support one against the other... but Coolcat want the Turkish position to be presented equally as the rest of the World. I have visited the Holocaust entry, and I have clearly seen that more place is left(a lot more) to the position of the majority of the Academia, I don't see why it should be different for the Armenian Genocide. It is true that Turkey deny it, but it is as well true that most in Islamic countries deny the Holocaust, according to him, both revisionist and official versions should be presented equally. I don't see how it is neutral to fool the reader into believing that two positions are supported equally, when it just isn't the cases at all. I request from Coolcat to present a list of works he has read about the issue, because his edits clearly exposes from his part or a strong biases or a total ignorance of the subject at hand. Fadix 17:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments. This is at bottom a content dispute involving several different parties and not simply a dispute regarding behaviour between Coolcat and Fadix. Moreover, even if it could be approached as a set of behavioural issues, it isn't clear to me that Fadix has selected the approporiate counter-parties,  There are a number of other editors involved in the disputes concerning it on both sides of the basic issues, who probably would not feel bound by any compromise that was reached between Coolcat and Fadix. I will add also that I have my doubts as to whether Fadix approaches this mediation with the proper mental attitude. I sense that he seeks some Wikipedia authority who will declare his point of view regarding the article to be "correct", so as to silence the opposition, rather than seeking assistance from a mediator in securing a compromise between the various points of view concerning the subject. --BM 18:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Torque left, he declared he won't participate anymore, the only that is left is Coolcat, the same that had no difficulty reverting back to a version that contained only 2 link supporting the Western version, and bunch of other links, denying the crime... one of those links, which was racist in nature. I do not expect anyone buying my point of view, reread my article, and you will see that I provide both "sides" and leaving as much space as the position is supported by the Academia. If my position is supported by most, it isn't my fault. Read World War I books in the West, and judge by yourself... Gilbert World War I book which is rather conservative much like the famous book: "Is the Holocaust Unique" support the "Neutral standard." I participated in this entry, because I know about it, and I expect those that participate in it have at least a basic knowledge of what they are talking about. Coolcat, has shown that he doesn't even know Justin McCarthys position.


 * Visit the World War I entry, those people that participated in it are very knowledgeable, and the quality of the article is exceptional, you will see what happened... the Armenian massacres are there, a reference link regarding the Armenian genocide without even suggested it is debated.


 * I will as well ask you another thing, and this you don't have to answer to, on what you base yourself to question my “mental attitude”? I propose you to read regarding what happened with the Armenian genocide entry on Encarta.


 * http://www.isg-iags.org/oldsite/newsletters/25/microsoft.html
 * http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/10.12/1-genocide.html


 * I am not silencing the opposition, I am just expecting that when someone read the article, he understand that Turkey support one theses, while the Western Academics do recognize it. I don't want double standards in history, the Holocaust entry accept this ratio of “recognized” vs “denied” and this is clear in the article. It is as well clear in the French and German entries regarding the Armenian genocide, and probably the rest, in the French one, there is an Administer moderating it. It is only in the English version that we do have this problem.


 * Coolcat editions do not only present the other view as equal as what is recognized by most, he introduce false informations and deletions, his editing display a clear ignorance about the subject at hand. I expect people that participate in an article, to know of what they are talking about, that's all I ask, at least Torque knew about the subject and he was justifying his positions, but since Coolcat ignore it, he knows that he can't discuss about it, so he sabotate the article without even justifying it.Fadix 18:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Torque has permanently resigned from the article. He sent a message about it to me and Mgm only yesterday. Mgm, Everyking, and to some degree, I have all tried to mediate unofficially in this dispute, but what Fadix is looking for from the "moderator" that he keeps appealing for is someone who will agree with him. The issue in this dispute is the degree to which NPOV requires the presentation of all points of view. Fadix argues that the Turkish view is simply "denial" or "revisionism" and can be relegated to a couple of paragraphs at the end of the article in the way that Holocaust denial/revisionism is treated in Holocaust. He even objects to his view being characterized as the "Armenian" view. For him, there is the truth, as concluded by the "majority" of Western scholars, and the Turkish view, which is denial. Others argue that whatever the merits of the arguments, the Turkish view is significant enough that the NPOV policy requires neutrality between it and the other views. I don't know whose point of view is correct, and have no personal axes to grind on the matter, but I am not prepared to treat the "Turkish" view as kooky holocaust denial that is ineligible for NPOV treatment in the Wikipedia. Regarding who the parties to a mediation should be, Torque has probably just decided that it is futile to argue with Fadix. If there is going to be a mediation, Torque should also be involved. --BM 18:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * “Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him...”


 * “In typical Armenian style,”


 * “This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.”


 * “the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.”


 * “Note Lynch is aware of the Armenian propensity for exaggeration,”


 * “Well in opposition to the Armenians who have gotten away with their lies and distortions for so long.”


 * “...then the exposure of the characterization of Armenians to lie and distort their religiously held genocidal obsession is not racism, but simply the truth.”


 * “If Fadix thinks it's racist to bring up this characteristic acknowledged since centuries ago by a Roman historian,...”


 * “Once again, Armenians love to charge others with the same unethical stunts Armenians are guilty of....”


 * “Every time the Armenians were granted further freedoms, they gained increasing license to practice their treachery...”


 * “This is the typical Armenian smear tactic going way back, perfected by many ethically-challenged Armenians like Vahan Cardashian.”


 * Here just few of Torque messages. How many times did I ask you to go and read the exchanges? You ignored my request and now judge me without even having read the cases at hand. Now, feel free to find any similar comments in every posts I made, regarding any ethnic groups. What kind of behavior is this? I report and ask to be mediated, and I am the one viewed as the “guilty” one. Is Wikipedia an anti-academic anti-elitist place or what? And stop deforming what I have said... go reread my entry, my entry present both positions, I see nothing wrong in giving more places to the version that is recognized by most, when it is by most, and no, I never supported the claim of “Turkish” at the bottom etc... view... I said that I opposed to say it is a Turkish view, and the reason for that is because it is discrimination. What I said was that it was the Turkish government view, which is the cases. And, I repeat, the majority in the Islamic world DENY the Shoah did happen, is that not significant enough to write such a message as “Jewish view” “Muslim view”? If not, why not? History is not written by Joe or Uncle Bob, it is written by the Academia, and it is expected that when someone come at Wikipedia and read an article, he expect to know what most specialists in the field believe in, specialists who have no advantages supporting either sides... that's all about, because if we were to use only a population, there are hundreds of millions out there that deny the Holocaust did happen, but there is a reason behind this denial that has nothing to do with independent research.


 * What I expect is simple, I expect someone to read and mediate,... and if you are here to judge me before actually having read the discussion because it was too long for you... no one is forcing you to moderate me. The behavior as a veterans you are displaying here, if others do like you, don't expect academics or elites to come here to participate. I will not accept an article to be edited by someone that does not know the subject, whatever or not he support my position.


 * Oh and, I will even not comment Torque message to you... but again, you have no problem with him when he ask for help, but when I fairly ask for mediation you judge me. And the only reason I included only Coolcat, was because Torque declared he will stopFadix 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I apologize if I seem judgemental. There are a couple of reasons that you might find me less open to you than others: (1) I am not reading 95% of what you are putting on the Talk pages.   I don't have the patience to read it, and it seems to me that anytime someone disagrees with you, you dump 600 pages of text into the Talk pages for them to read, as if the sheer length of what you write must be persuasive. I read the first couple of paragraphs and then give up.  I would imagine most other people feel the same way.   Please focus on the issues and make the arguments succinctly.   If people think it is relevant to dive into the details, then they will ask you questions or invite you to provide more information.  (2) As I said, you will need to show willingness to conform to Wikipedia norms in order to be received as politely as you might hope.  These norms are all about creating a NEUTRAL presentation of all significant points of view about a subject.  Significance does not equate to correct, or true.  It means significant.  The Turkish point of view about accusations that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians is a significant point of view when discussing this subject.    NPOV is Policy Number One on the Wikipedia.   So, even if the "Turkish" view is completely misguided, wrong, even malevalent, you will find that most Wikipedia editors are not going to be comfortable with discounting it and presenting another point of view as "fact" and the Turkish view as "denial" or "revisionism".  They will seek to present all the facts and arguments and let people draw their own conclusions.  To repeat, the point of view on Wikipedia is NPOV.  It is not the "Western scholars' consensus point of view"; it is not the "scientific point of view";  it is the NEUTRAL point of view.   If you cannot work with other editors to make articles NEUTRAL, you have no business editing articles on the Wikipedia.  You may consider this outrageous, biased, and perhaps a few other things; but I will tell you bluntly, if you persist in taking this to mediation, arbitration, etc, YOU stand a very good chance of being the person sanctioned in this matter -- for example, being blocked from editing the article.  The Wikipedia term for your transgression is "POV pushing", and it is no less a transgression if people favor your POV.   You cannot win an argument on Wikipedia if you seem to be POV pushing.   I say this as a person who has not added a single line of text to the article itself, who has no point of view on this subject, and as a person who would like to see en.wikipedia have a good, neutral, article on this topic.   --BM 21:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I did many concession, you can compare the first article I submitted with the most recent one. I am ready to make concessions, my problem is not there. I will tell you the Xst time what my problem is.


 * Supposes that there is two version of something... my problem is not presenting those two versions, my problem is that I believe and want the two versions should be presented as they are.


 * Suppose that there is two interpretation of Quantum Mechanic(there is more, but let just stick to two), if I present one interpretation, that interpretation should be accurate... and then I present the second one... and that is the whole point. The whole point is presenting each interpretation accurately.


 * If the versions are to be presented, they should rightly be presented. If I present the Western version of the Armenian genocide, most Western Academics are support one version against another, and that fact should be presented rightfully, Coolcat dump the two versions without indciating who's version it is. The truth is that most Western Academics support the theses of genocide. A section regarding the Western Academics should be presented... it is their version.


 * I oppose to claim “Turkish” and “Armenian version.” And that is for a clear reason, the number of Turkish Academics recognizing the genocide is just growing, as a result the Turkish government has made illegal by law the recognition of the genocide. Anyone recognizing it can be sentenced for 10 years of prison.


 * So, it is not right to generalize and say “Turkish point of view.” The more accurate thing to say would be the official Turkish government version. Those are at the center of the problem, and not about restricting to present the revisionist side.


 * There is this, and there is as well, the version of the Turkish human right organization that as well recognize the Armenian genocide.


 * Coming to the “Armenian view,” the thing is that there is no reason to include any Armenian view, there are Armenian Academics that are a little more extremist than others, but the entire world Armenian population is of about 7-8 million.


 * There is as well International Community view, the UN and various other similar organizations, etc.


 * With what are we left with? I don't know if you get the picture, we are left with the Turkish government official version, and the position of the “rest.” Are we to present all those versions and give as much space to all of them as we will give to the Turkish government official version? It doesn't make any sense, because if we do that, we kill neutrality, neutrality is not about giving false representation as to make the reader believe that both position are supported equally when they obviously aren't.


 * Another point I would like to make, and this is because of Torque slanders against my person, he has now gone in a war to assassinate my character. When I posted the article, I had the intention to change it, and neutralize it more, but since the article that was already there was more POV than mine, I submitted as a bases to start with. The same goes with Adana holocaust(Torque doesn't like the name, but that was what it was called when it happened) and the Hamidian massacre. I am not a bonehead, when I came here at Wikipedia I have read all what was to be read before deciding to contribute, I came here and was chocked to realize that Torque the author of an infamous racist website was participating using Wikipedia as a continuation of his hateful website.


 * Lastly, I do admit my posts are long, but believe me, I do everything possible to write as short as possible, by in the same time covering all the relevant points, it is a complex subject and it is obvious that it does require an analysis.Fadix 22:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, let me clarify a few things that I worry are getting lost here. Mediation will not enforce any decision on anyone you feel is misbehaving, unless the two of you can work it out. You need to explain what you hope to agree to with Coolcat--this will require both of you to compromise, at least a little. Please make sure you have notified Coolcat of your mediation request on his talk page, and then come here and write a brief description of what you realistically hope to agree to with Coolcat. Please also offer any mediator's names (see WP:MC) who you would prefer, but remember that the mediator is there to help you two work things out on your own, not to take either side. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read the list, and I would like to chose you as a mediator, mainly because of your Bachelor in history, I know I should not judge based on such factors, but it is understandable that I expect the one that would mediate to have the basic tools to have a neutral historical point of view of the Armenian Genocide entry. As I repeated, I am ready to compromise, I will warn Coolcat about the mediation request, even though I think he already know my decision.Fadix 23:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are the points I want to agree one with Coolcat.
I don't want any messages saying this subject is controversial, Coolcat insist that there should be a note that say just that. Controversial imply that specialists in the field(Holocaust and genocide study) are divided about the subject, when it is not the cases at all.

I expect more place to be left for the view supported by most Academics, Coolcat want the cases presented as 50%-50% claiming that is what is neutral. I oppose, and claim that being neutral doesn't mean to mislead the reader into believing that both versions are equally represented in the Academic world, when it is obviously not.

I have by myself made many concessions, and will be making others, just recently I have made a new proposition. Dividing each positions and explaining them. First, what most Western scholars more or less say about it, then, what the Turkish government say about, what the international community say about, then present the Military court of 1919, the Permanent People Tribunal in 1984... the UN convention and a historic of the Armenian cases in the UN etc. Just by representing this, I am showing why, both cases can not be presented 50-50... because one side version revolve around: “They backstabbed us and they were relocated because they were dangerous.” We can not extend that statement indefinitely as to equal it with the rest... because if we do that, we will end up giving less space to the official Western version which would be unfair. It isn't my fault that the cases of genocide is recognized by most in the Academia, it isn't my fault that it is recognized by international bodies... why should I then have less space to present the theses of genocide... when not only shall I present in this 50% space, the theses of genocide, but as well, the international bodies decision, the Turkish human right organization, the Military tribunal, the Permanent People tribunal, the recognition by various countries... how much space is left to represent the Armenian genocide theses?

That is why, I am saying that we can not present 50-50, because we will mislead the reader... Neutral Point of view doesn't require that each sides be given as much space, when one side in the Academic world represent a minority... Neutral point of view doesn't mean to mislead the reader to believe just that.

I have read many Wikipedia entry, and I have seen many cases that are called an example of success of community work, which would be considered as no neutral when using the same standard as the one used to judge my Armenian genocide entry. And I am ready here to present cases and show how... and this including entries in which Coolcat has participated, when it is pro-turkey, he doesn't care of neutrality, but when it doesn't favor Turkey, he will jump in the discussion. That is unfair, Wikipedia should not be constructed on national biases, it should be constructed on knowledge and accurate representation of events. And I do support Neutral, but this neutral representation should not mean to represent two sides equally, when they are not supported equally... one has just to research the issue to see it's true, and even those not supporting my theses if they are unbiased would recognize both side are not represented equally in the academia.

I would like to make another point, since I saw that Torque has started his war of character assassination in another board for what has happened here by posting racist materials... and I think part of this problem is Wikipedia, Torque has received no warning what so ever for his racism in this site, and I have found myself being viewed as the offensive party, and I think it started with when Coolcat has left a message to BM, and I believe BM judged me and took Coolcat position, because he's a veteran and I am a newbie. Another thing I believe, I think there should some conditions to participate in complex articles, I find it hard to accept, when people that do not know a subject sabotate an article because of national biases. If they do not find it neutral, they could ask to people that know about it. Had Coolcat asked me to make few changes, I would have accepted.Fadix 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Urgent attention required
It is your claim without basis that MOST academics acknowlege the genocide, in reality its disputed. The article is required to be presented so that the user can read it with an open mind. Baseless statistics of "scholars believe this" is not wikipedia way. Even if the statistics regarding all scholars is acurate this is NOT lead material. Also on multiple articles, fadix has made edits aproaching The genocide as a solid fact most noteworthy Genocides in history. Also he talked people arguing with him to death by posting pages worth of data, that is ok as he was a newbie. Dont bite newbies I know, but newbies are not supposed to bite oldies either.

He was claiming that I have a hidden agenda, he was constantly acusing me of things. While I was merely presenting material that countered his views hence his views were not as neutral as he claimed. I am not happy with the current mediator. Article is not a simple historic dispute but a Diplomatic dispute with mass amount of propoganda. Claims like "Turkey gassed childeren" (paraphrasing) is definately not neutral. Any addition subtraction I make is immidiately reverted. Anything I said is ignored. Providing 200,000 dead instead of 800,000 (min) bothers fadix while 200,000 is official Turkish claim of the # of dead. He is saying its POV. Cat chi? 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He believes that the death of Armanians were deliberate goverment organised Genocide, while another explanation is famine or disease and other stuff. There are two views. He is declaring the oposing view POV and his view fact. Cat chi? 06:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It takes some face for someone saying that he does not believe the Holocaust happened to come here and say I am not neutral. I repeat, that MOST Western academicians recognize the event as a genocide is a fact, I proposed you to research libraries to see that this is obviously true. Wikipedia is clear about neutrality and you can do nothing about it. And where did I claim “Turkey” gassed children? I referred to records used during the martial court... And as well the article does not make a direct statement about it but rather propose it as a claim.

And it is surprising that Coolcat has nothing to say with Torque posting load of materials and when I answer he criticize me of posting and posting... and more amazingly he even asked torque to do so by asking him to research “POV” in what I write. I can't say that I am really unhappy about it, because Torque has just posted more fabricated materials showing how he rely on dubious materials and how he can't be trusted upon. Right now, I will take a brake from answering him, but will answer all of his posts, because I do believe Wikiepdia is not the place for genocide deniers that under the banner of neutrality try to impose their minority view as equal as what most specialists have established.

And yes! You have a hidden agenda, and no 200,000 Armenian deaths can not be presented as credible figure, when the official Ottoman figures were of 800,000 killed. The 200,000 is even lower than Talaat sarcastic disgusting joke of “300,000” similar to those made by Hitler about tens of thousands of Jews at most having perished making fun of countless numbers of victims.

The actual mediator is doing a good job, and all was going well until you disturbed the peace by waking up Torque, when both Torque and you knows that you have no position to defend against me so now you go on crying telling how non-neutral all this was. Had you need disturbed the peace, today I would have worked on neutralizing the article instead of answering Torque manipulations. If anything isn't correct, you have only yourself to condemn for. Fadix 02:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont care about Torque I dont care about you. I care about article being neutral, you are the one who declared you will ignore me, you are the one reverting spelling corrections and cosmetic fixes as POV. You are the who want to be in sole control of the article, What is this most western academia agrees BS? Its baseless. Most people do not CARE. You are pushing the article one sided. I want to keep the article 50/50 which isnt googd enough for you. "OMG he is so biased he wants to keep the article half and half!". I'd like to have a mediator sometime this year. Cat chi? 20:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You know Mr. Coolcat, I could have hidden like you do, my ethnicity, by claiming I am not an Armenian. But did not do so, because I am not dumb, I believe that ones ethnicity is not what makes ones arguments credible, but rather what he has to say. I repeat, as a veteran, you have no idea of what neutral means. I have shown you, and clarified. Either you're not intelligent enough to understand why neutrality doesn't mean presenting two arguments as equally valid, and why claiming it to be neutral would be a paradox. Or you are so much biased because of a perverted nationalist, that it is blinding you and preventing you to resonate correctly in this issue. And I REPEAY! STOP sabotaging every entries of genocide that include the Armenian cases. STOP IT, this is against Wikipedia rules. Fadix 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarenes: Various users and Jayjg & Josh Cherry & Jfdwolff
Jayjg and now Josh Cherry too wont allow any updates to a unsourced POV section of original research mostly by Jayjg himself about some people called netzarim. All I want to do is read something verifiable. if anyone knows anything about this topic please take a look. I don't plan on getting involved. All I want to do is sit back and read quietly, but this has been going on for far too many months now.193.63.146.184 18:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You should try Requests for Comment first; this is an article content dispute. I'll put the request up there. Oh, and there are other users reverting your POV edits too, not just the ones mentioned above. Jayjg (talk)  18:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem appears to have been solved a couple of days after the request. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Safavids: deadlocked discussion and revert war
User Pantherarosa waged a revert war on Safavids page. He deliberately deletes the historical facts concerning the Turkic-speaking origin of the Safavids, the pictures and maps rightfully included in the Safavids page and other historical details narrating the history of the Safavid state (1501-1736). Instead, he constantly reverts the article without even adding something new, thus making the page to look like almost a stub. He tries to promote his pan-Persian nationalistic POV arguing that Safavids were of Persian and/or Kurdish ("Aryan") origin. He simply ignores numerous authoritative Western and even Iranian sources pointing that Safavids were Turkic-speaking. He labels these sources (among them medieval chronicles, Cambridge History of Iran in 8 volumes etc.) as "hearsay" and "efforts of Turkish zealots"... The discussions (as well as reverts and counter-reverts) have become increasingly tense and ugly. Mediation is needed to bridge the gap of understanding and mutual personal antagonisms. If mediation doesn't work, arbitration would be the last resort.--Tabib 15:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * [Personal attack removed by Jwrosenzweig on 20:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)] Rovoam © 2005, Andrew Kirsanoff 04:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This has since gone through arbitration, so presumably too late for mediation. Moving to archive. Angela. 02:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Palestine-info vs. User:Jayjg
A large number of content disputes at Ariel Sharon, B'Tselem, Coalition of the willing, Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, Israel, Khan Yunis, List of military occupations, Medical Aid for Palestinians, NGO Monitor, Palestinian People's Party, Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine and Yasser Arafat. Palestine-info 15:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Eagerly accept. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I ask you both to list here the agreements you hope to reach in mediation -- not evidence of wrongdoing, but your goals for the future so that problems can be avoided.  This will help the mediator guide you to a settlement of the dispute.  Please also look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the names of those you would be willing to work with -- hopefully an agreeable choice for both of you will present itself.  Thanks for your patience. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreements on article content. Mediators I choose in order of preference: Stevertigo, Cimon Avaro, Danny, Jwrosenzweig then the remaining mediators unordered. I won't be very active at Wikipedia for the coming month(s), but I will do my best to solve this. Palestine-info 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think article content is only the symptom of the problem. My real concern here is that this editor has created a userid solely for the purpose of political advocacy on behalf of Palestinians. As a result, he has consistently made POV edits which are unsupported by evidence, and often continues to make these edits even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and statements by many outside parties on Talk: pages that his edits are POV and erroneous. Even when RfCs draw in outside editors, and they tell him his edits are unwarranted, he persists in making them. While solving the article content issues would be helpful, I would like to solve the root cause, which I believe is a recognition that Wikipedia is intended to be a NPOV encyclopedia, not a soapbox for political advocacy. I would prefer Jwrosenzweig or Danny as mediators. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though I and Danny are the two consensus choices. I will consult with Danny about whether he is willing to take this case on, or if I will.  If I am your mediator, we'll have a little slowdown getting started, as I'll be away from email this weekend, but otherwise it looks like you're almost ready to begin.  Thanks for being reasonable about this -- either Danny or I will leave a note here accepting the case and giving initial instructions very soon. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I a happy to take this case. As always, I would prefer it if both parties were to send me an email summarizing their positions and where they see the problems. Danny 10:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Emax vs. User:Chris 73
Requests for mediation - for which reason, please see details on:. Thank you--Emax 02:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no details at the link you provided. RickK 22:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Emax, for mediation, it is not really vital to have evidence of Chris's alleged wrongdoing....that's an arbitration matter. What is most important is that you explain what you hope to have an agreement on -- that way the mediator can help you and Chris understand what you each are hoping for, and hopefully can guide you both to reaching an understanding between each other.  Please post here what you hope to reach an agreement on.  Also, please look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the mediator or mediators you would like to have hear this dispute.  If you have not yet told Chris that you have requested mediation, please let him know.  Chris, once you see this, please note whether or not you accept mediation.  If you accept it, please offer the points on which you feel you and Emax need to understand each other, and the list of mediators you would accept.  Once you can agree on a mediator and the issues needing mediation, you can be on your way. Jwrosenzweig 22:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Emax, for mediation, it is not really vital to have evidence of Chris's alleged wrongdoing - well, the Arbitration Committee because i dont tried to solve the problem in other way, rejected my request.
 * What is most important is that you explain what you hope to have an agreement on - some consequences for his behavior.
 * If you have not yet told Chris that you have requested mediation - he already know that :)
 * Also, please look at the list of mediators at WP:MC and list here the mediator or mediators you would like to have hear this dispute. - i dont know the people listed there so.. i will accept everyone who instead of thanking him for his work on wiki, will also have the opinion that such rasistic behavior - espescially for an admin - is not acceptable.--Emax 14:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Emax, thanks for replying, and for your patience. Your comments, though, are suggesting to me that I need to be very clear about mediation -- mediation is not a case where a mediator will come in, talk to you both, and then impose "consequences" on anyone.  The mediator's task is to aid you both in communicating so that you do not have trouble in the future.  Any consequences need to be agreed to by both you and Chris.  If you already knew this, please forgive my unnecessary explanation.  As you are apparently open to having any user mediate, we will wait to see if Chris accepts, and, if so, if there is any mediator that he would prefer.  Thanks for your note. Jwrosenzweig 15:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if Emax understands the mediation process correctly. My feeling is that Emax has a gripe against me due to some edit wars including 3RR blocks, and tries to punish me (including a rejected Requests for arbitration (rejected by all committee members), listing me on Vandalism in progress (reverted three times), and a (rejected/idle) Requests for page protection claiming that I started an edit war). The accusations are based on some inappropriate wording, for which I have long since apologized. Other accusations are about actions of mine that are completely in accordance with the Wikipedia policy (i.e. reverting Emax while he was doing block evasion). In sum, I think the accusations are without ground, and also that the mediation process is not the right place. A mediation would probably waste the time of all parties involved.
 * However, if a mediator thinks mediation may help, I would be willing to participate. Possible topics would be content disputes, for example if Lucas David was Prussian or Polish. The use of Gdansk/Danzig is also one of the disputes, but that involves more users than just the two of us. But again, since Emax apparently wants mediation against me instead of between us, combined with his unwillingness to compromise, I have serious doubts about the success of the mediation. Also, for the record, Emax did not inform me of ANY of the actions he took against me, and I only found out through my watchlist. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * A major vote is underway at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which should solve some of the conflicts. I would like to encourage everybody to vote. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Melanin
I'm requesting a mediation between me User:Wareware and User:deeceevoice. This person keeps on reverting my edits and inserting racism/racialism/racial supremacy related matters on an article concerning the biological molecule of melanin. I made a two sentences brief mention that melanin is important in determining a person's skin color, an integral criterion on "race," and has corresponding social and political impacts. The readers are then directed to far more detailed articles on race, racism, white and black supremacy and so forth. Deeceevoice then comes along and inserts prolonged information on various caste and apartheid systems around the world based on skin color (already mentioned in detail in the racism article), then goes on institutional racism by white supremacy notions "world-wide." Then goes on to stereotypes of blondes, brunettes, and redheads. I've already said many times on the talk pages that these information regarding racism are already covered ad nauseum in their respective articles, and that the readers should be redirected to them instead of being barraged with them when the article is about the biological molecule. However, deeceevoice just cannnot be reasoned with, since this person's preoccupation is inserting as much racism-related information as possible. On the melanin matter, User:babajobu and User:pstudier stand by my opinion (see the talk pages). In addition, Deeceevoice is known to be a very hostile and vitriolic contributor, just see this person's edit history and various disputes with other contributors (recently on Afrocentrism, Cool (aesthetic)...), and has been requested to act with some civility on many accounts. Wareware 19:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wareware, please notify deecee on deecee's talk page that you have requested mediation at this page. Then look over the mediators at WP:MC and let us know here if you have a preference for which ones to work with.  When you do so, also explain what agreements you hope to reach (not what complaints you hope to lodge), so that mediation has a clear goal in mind.  Thanks very much, Jwrosenzweig 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hiya Jwrosenzweig, I don't really have a preference as to which particular mediators, but I hope they are all impartial as they are mediators. The agreement I'd like to reach is that the role of melanin in racial/racist matters can be mentioned, but should not go to a long extent that is already covered in more relevant articles.   Wareware 02:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny. I'm just seeing this, quite by accident.  Wareware never informed me of this process, which is needless/silly.  For some reason, he seems to think the article Melanin should be limited to a discussion of its physical properties -- which is clearly in error.  Further, I am not the only person who believes some mention should be made of melanin-based color bias in societies around the world -- mention, mind you, with a few examples to guide readers to other, related topics.  This dimension of the subject under discussion existed before I even came to the article.  In reality, Wareware's beef isn't with that; it's with me.  He's a racist, plain 'n' simple.  This Request for Mediation should be dismissed -- or whatever one does with groundless complaints.  deeceevoice 08:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki, Categories and Reversion
I have edited many articles in an attempt to minimize the effect of the "bug" which creates large blank spaces at the bottoms of articles with Interwiki and Category links by placing the seperators (e.g. !--Interwiki--) between the two sections and deleting the line breaks between each different category and Interwiki. This results in all of the buttons being confined to "one" line and removes the large gap at the bottom. User:Cburnett didn't agree to my fix of the problem and started reverting and undoing all of these changes on all of the articles I have edited in this manner, citing "de facto wikipedia standards". After reverting each other's work back and forth, I called for an end to the edit war and a discussion ensued (here). It abruptly ended when Cburnett started reverting all of the edits again and declared the conversation over. I suggested Mediation, which he refused, hence my solitary position in bringing this to you. I wish to get some help in determining if these edits of mine are appropriate, as well as the appropriateness of the seperators (which I only included after seeing them on several pages and noting their usefulness/complete lack of interferance with the page). Thank you. --The Grza 23:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bug has since been fixed, and dispute seems to be over. Moving to archive. Angela. 02:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Common Era
I request meditation not so much for content reasons, but because jguk has declared his intractable opposition to the inclusion of an external link on the article that he dislikes. Despite the fact that it is appropriately listed under a heading called "Commentary" (in response to his previous complaints), he continues to oppose its inclusion.

The behavior that most concerns me is that even though several users (including myself) have provided numerous detailed references and arguments in favor of this link, jguk does not address them, but merely restates his claims, as if repetition alone will prove his point.

After it became clear that he was alone in his opposition and continual reverting, jguk then opened the issue as an RfC, which immediately produced two comments that supported his position, which jguk claims bolsters his case, though they merely state an opinion, and like jguk, have not addressed any of the references and arguments that support leaving the link up.

The irony here is that I would gladly support taking the link down if jguk would successfully refute the arguments against him, be he hasn't even tried. He just keeps repeating his claims and refuses to answer any specific point that anyone posts, preferring instead to post new configurations and permutations of his original claims.

I have pointed this out to him repeatedly, yet he keeps restating his claims without responding to the specific challenges to them. This has tied up Common Era unduly, which I feel is greatly unfair. So I am requesting mediation now because I don't see the point in content being held hostage to an editor who flatly refuses to respond to specific arguments challenging his position.

References at Talk:Common_Era:
 * 1) Religious Tolerance website
 * 2) Another round on religious tolerance
 * 3) Religioustolerance.org, once and for all
 * 4) Request for Comment issue et seq.

&#8211;da blaze  16:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute. I have listed it on RfC. So far we have had two respondents offering an outside view. Both of these agree with me that this is a bad link for the reasons I have noted. Dablaze's and Sunray's point is that the link should remain because they want it to remain and because it is popular. I have repeated said that this is irrelevant as the link is the website has zero intellectual standing, and have outlined why this is the case. We should await more outside comments from the RfC.


 * This case is clearly unsuitable for mediation as (1) it is a content dispute; (2) there is no possible middle route - either we link to the website Dablaze wants us to link to, or we don't. He and Sunray have already rejected what I can see as the only possible middle route, which is to find a reputable website that makes the same point as this unreputable one, jguk 18:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Dablaze has made the case for mediation regarding Jguk's continual removal of the external link to the Religious Tolerance website . Jguk argues that this matter is unsuitable for mediation.  However, what Dablaze has documented is, IMO, but one example of a larger issue that may indeed require mediation: that being Jguk's repeated tendancy to revert or remove the contributions of other editors of the Common Era article, rather than editing or discussing them.  It is as though Jguk believes that his standards are the ultimate test of what goes into the article.  The most recent example is Jguk's response to User: Berserk798 on March 31: "rv - I'm not really sure what the last edit was trying to achieve - please comment on talk if you wish to restore it, thanks" (see Common Era history .  Several people have tried to sort this one out on the discussion page without success.  Sunray 09:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * If Jguk will not mediate, it cannot be forced upon him. I would suggest a request for comment if that hasn't already been tried.  If it has, you might consider arbitration, but if it really is a dispute over content, they might reject it.  A request for comment or a peer review is the only real way to solve a content dispute, if one exists. Jwrosenzweig 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite clear, jguk's protestations aside, that this is a user conduct issue, and not a content issue. But thank you for your comments. &#8211;da blaze  22:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a content issue - whether we do or do not link to a blog. I emphatically say no, Dablaze and Sunray emphatically say yes. We've got a RfC on the page and comments are currently 2-1 in favour of not having the link. The only user conduct issue here is whether it is right or not for users to remove disputed information to the talk page. I'm confident most Wikipedians will say that questionable material has no place in the article space - I presume Dablaze isn't seriously arguing against that. Whether they agree with me or Dablaze as to how questionable this material is, would be another question - but one that's quite clearly on content, jguk 22:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't force mediation if all parties are not agreeing to it. I'm moving this to the archive since RFC seems the only option at this stage. Angela. 02:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Borda count: RSpeer & Fahrenheit451

 * I am temporarily withdrawing this request because I found out I'm supposed to go to Requests for comment first. RSpeer 14:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

[original request commented out below]

<!-- User:Fahrenheit451 has written an article for Borda count that pushes his pro-Borda count POV, a fact first stated by other users on its talk page. I attempted to begin removing the most blatant POV statements. User:Fahrenheit451 made a bunch of personal attacks and reverted my edit.

My position is that the page is badly in need of cleanup, especially with the POV problem. Fahrenheit451 insists that his POV is neutral, and will not believe me when I try to explain what NPOV means on Wikipedia (that is, you attribute controversial statements to who claims them). He has also stated at one point that he doesn't think the page needs cleanup.

I added the NPOV tag to say that the POV of the page was disputed. He removed it without addressing my complaints, when there was clearly still a dispute. Since then he has removed the tag a second time.

The debate has gone on for a while on the discussion page. Fahrenheit451 constantly tries to reframe the debate to focus on one statement on the page, when the problem is the whole page. He takes issue with every detail in my objections in the talk page, so that practically every sentence spins off a thread of argument, and then when I try to bring up the original point he pretends he never made it.

For example -- and I emphasize that this is one example, not the whole problem -- and just to set it apart from the main thrust of my argument I'll indent it:


 * He makes the statement that the Borda Count has fewer strategic flaws than any other positional method. I respond on the discussion page by saying that's pretty misleading, as there are only two positional methods significant enough to be described on Wikipedia, which are Plurality and Borda count, and claiming superiority to plurality isn't hard.


 * He responds that there are other positional methods, like "vote for two" and "vote for three".


 * I respond that people don't seriously propose those methods in election reform, and that proponents of other election methods don't compare them to straw men like "vote for two" and "vote for three".


 * He responds that IRV would be a better example. I respond that IRV isn't positional. He responds, sure, it isn't, why does it need to be?


 * I can't tell if he is that forgetful, or if he's just doing that to push my buttons, but I suspect the second.

Another example of a point that he has focused on intensely:


 * I have fought for a while to get in a statement about (to me) Borda's biggest flaw, which is that a team of similar candidates can run and increase their chances of winning as a whole - it's the opposite of the spoiler effect, and it would lead to parties nominating as many candidates as possible. He finally leaves this statement in, but later he adds a sentence saying this effect goes away with more voters.


 * I remove the statement, because it isn't true. (Look at this page under "teaming" for an example, which doesn't depend on the number of voters.)


 * He responds with a link to a paper that purportedly proves him right, and takes me to task for not citing my sources. (I have cited my sources to him before, and it didn't seem to help, so I have been reluctant to spend even more hours of my day on this dispute looking up sources for him to ignore. But the source for this fact is the link above.) When I check his source, the paper is about something entirely different, which is the effect of the strategies of voters (not candidates). In a recent addition to the discussion page, he has claimed that my main issue with the article is that statement; it seemed that he started with a false statement and defended it with more false statements just to distract the discussion from the fact that the article is a mess.

My main complaints about Fahrenheit451, then, are:


 * He has written a very POV article on the Borda count, and is defending it territorily against revision.
 * He has stated that he is following a different definition of NPOV than WP:NPOV, and removed the npov template from the page.
 * He has been uncooperative on the discussion page, using tactics that seem designed to make me angry and distract from the main point (that the article needs cleanup and NPOV).

RSpeer 10:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) -->

Template:WWIIGermanAFVs
I mistakenly placed my request here instead of going to Requests_for_comment first. My apologies. Oberiko 16:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[original request commented out below]

<!-- Hello all. Myself and user User:Starfury have been in contention of the format and vehicles of this page and there has been constant reversion.

To settle the dispute I asked for a Third opinion which was provided by User:Martin Wisse. Martin then stated a preference that was very much along the lines of what I had been arguing for.

Starfury has still continued to change the page to something different though, and revert when I put the template to the format that both Martin and I wanted. When I attempted to create a survey about the issue (the inclusion of the T-34 tank) he created a seperate poll to try and lump the T-34 with the panzer 35(t) and panzer 38(t), something no one was argueing about. When I merged the polls, he would then, again, continue to revert; claiming that it was HIS poll and I shouldn't be altering it.

I have placed protection on the page (something I would like to remove, but I don't want an edit war), and tried to talk with him on his user page, but he seems quite insistant of having the template displayed his way.

Any intervention would be appreciated. Oberiko 07:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I, the opposing party in the Issue dispute this framing of the debate. My version of the time line is:
 * Two months ago there was a short debate over if to have a separated Foreign vehicles section. It was left with the section for two months until Oberiko reverted to his version, which after I discovered a few days later.
 * The debate again started up again this April. I asked Oberiko to present more valid points then he had made up to then- he refused and wanted a third opinion- which he did before I could agree to.
 * Despite disagreement with this single third opinion I accepted it for the issue I thought was being debated- having a Foreign tank section in the template. However, Oberiko viewed a whole number of other issue's as being included in this- things that I still disagreed with and thought had not been discussed enough. Specifically the inclusion of the other foreign tanks at all in the basic format- the (S-35 which I conceded to be removed) and the Panzer 34(r) and some other template formatting.
 * Oberiko then proceeded to make a poll, which I thought did not represent the issues at hand very well, so I made my own (which lumped the foreign tanks together). He then proceeded to delete his own poll and change the one I had typed in and already voted on, to his version, thus changing the meaning of my vote.
 * I undid these changes to the poll I had created. He then locked, using his admin powers his modified version of this poll. He also locked the template. Another issue was the table formatting, such as if armored cars and half-tracks share the same line and how they are seperated.
 * We have both further discussed the issues, to no avail. Currently, I am willing to accept a wide range of compromise versions of the template, over the matter of where and which exact foreign tanks are included, and over how the table is formatted. Starfury 15:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-->
 * I'd add points, but there's quite enough of both mine and Starfury's arguements on the discussion page in question. Don't need to drag it here. Oberiko 15:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana
Request mediation between User:Cumbey and User:SqueakBox. This request was ignored for 10 days on this pagebefore; please can someone take this on now and not leave me waiting 10 days again. Check the archive for details, or ask me. This case has been ignored for too long! --SqueakBox 16:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you notified Cumbey on his talk page that you are asking for this? Please do so. Then please list the mediators who would be acceptable to you, and outline what you hope to mutually agree to with Cumbey as a result of this process.  Thanks for your patience, Jwrosenzweig 02:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation withdrawn. See Requests for comment/Cumbey. I think it may be beyond mediation, and I am getting the support I need. Cheers, --SqueakBox 16:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle and User:Trey Stone
The former has proven completely uncapable of accepting any kind of compromise. I don't have time to write one-page essays to justify my very basic NPOV edits that this user mass reverts. His edits on Corporate media are, in particular, blatant propaganda and left-wing POV. See also: Isle of Youth, Death squad, Suharto, Allan Nairn, and Amy Goodman. J. Parker Stone 06:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not offering to mediate, but I am willing to sell tickets. Grace Note 07:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Free admission available here: Special:Contributions/Trey Stone. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

vandalized by Trey as follows:
 * blah blah blah Grace Note 07:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * shibbity shibbity shoo! &mdash; Davenbelle 07:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)