Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 18

Pan-American Highway
There is a dispute on this page between myself and User:Tequendamia, as presented in the Talk:Pan-American Highway page and in the page's history log. Tequendamia strongly believes that the phrase "the American concern that Colombians migrated massively to Panama and claimed the restoration of sovereignty over this territory that was separated from Colombia by the US in 1903" should be included in the article. I argue that the phrase should be changed into "the concern that Colombians would migrate massively to Panama", specifically because Tequendamia has not provided evidence of a)the existence of such a concern being currently held by the U.S. government b)that Colombians migrating to Panama today would seek to realistically claim such sovereignity, among other points. Tequendamia has accused me of vandalism, whereas I have repeatedly tried to ask him to present evidence supporting his position. A little bit of a pointless "edit war" has erupted about this, hence perhaps some mediation from a third party would be necessary in order to solve this dispute. Juancarlos2004 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Juancarlos2004 has informed User:Tequendamia of this request on their talk page. Awaiting response. Mgm|(talk) 17:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Empathy
There is a clear dispute on this page, as indicated in Talk:Empathy. I have made major grammar edits, and someone has called them "idiotic" and has threatened to undo everyone of them. I probably spent 2 hours fixing the page. My intentions were not to offend or vandalize.--Joseph Wayne Hicks 05:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've posted to Talk:Empathy and asked other disputants to respond to this request. Mgm|(talk) 17:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like no one wishes to revert my edits, so after all this time. No mediation is probably needed.--whicky1978 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada
A request for mediation regarding a user and administrator User:AndyL has been submitted. This user has hijacked pages relating to the Canadian Monarchy to push his strong republican POV (demonstrated easily by his editing history), debate and discussion has had no effect, and his attitude is bullyish and borderline offensive. There are two key areas where this is happening: on the Monarchist League of Canada page where he is trying to push his POV about the Crown in Canada being British, and on Monarchy in Canada where he is trying to make his debate a part of the article.

The debate began at the Monarchist League of Canada page, and has become quite heated. User:AndyL does not accept factual argument and numerous proofs from both User:Peter Grey and myself, instead only asserting his own POV backed up by misinterpreted or completely irrelevant information.

A mediator clearly needs to step in to assist in a resolution to the arguments, as well as to control AndyL's behavior. --gbambino 20:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I dispute that it is *my* behaviour that has to be "controlled". Gbambino's been rather consistent in ignoring consensus in order to push his particular POV in various articles.AndyL 5 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)


 * Has this been resolved, or is mediation still requested? -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Peter Grey suggested a compromise some days or weeks ago for Monarchist League of Canada and I accepted it so, as far as I can tell, there is no actual dispute at present regarding the contents of that article. There is a debate on Talk:Monarchist League of Canada but it is not about the actual article so mediation would serve no purpose. AndyL 6 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue is ongoing as AndyL continues to push his POV against provided facts and logical argument to the contrary, all in a consistent bullyish and unmannerly tone.--gbambino 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

This is not the arbitration committee and has no power in regards to exercising discipline, it simply tries to achieve compromise and we have a compromise. The mediation committee is a voluntary process, not an obligitory one and unless you can convince me that there's some value in mediating this the matter further the matter is closed and, frankly, the way you and Peter are going about this is making it less likely that I will volunteer to engage in mediation. Peter below asks for "some action", that is not what the mediation committee is empowered to do. He, like you, is confusing the mediation process with the arbitration process and the ArbComm has dismissed your complaint as, evidently, the ArbComm members do not concur with what you "believe" to be the case. AndyL 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

And furthermore, there is nothing currently in Monarchy in Canada or Monarchist League of Canada that is subject to dispute except for the question of external links and both you and Peter Grey have agreed with me on that question. The fact that you don't like my questioning some of your overly broad or inaccurate edits is just part of life on wikipedia. No one has the last say, it's a collaborative effort, and you'll just have to learn to deal with it rather than running and complaing whenever someone says you're wrong about something. AndyL 8 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)


 * Your tone above demonstrates precisely why a mediator is needed. Direct communication with you always results in this type of attempt to demean and defame your opponent when you are challenged or contradicted.  You claim that all issues have been resolved, yet lengthy debates, which you often draw down with your derogatory and bullyish attitude, have been continuing over the past couple of days at Talk:Monarchist League of Canada.  I'm also concerned that you will not let this go, and will continue to try and shove your ill-informed POV down everyone's throat, brushing all factual evidence and argument aside in the process.  This is, for now, all I have to say on the matter here; I hope a mediator will at least pay some attention to this and offer assistance. --gbambino 8 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't convinced me, and mediators require the consent of all parties so I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps you should give some thought as to why not even one arbitrator thought your complaint worthy of attention? I'm sorry you are so intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you and so incapable of dealing with criticsm -- hopefully you'll get the hang of dealing with disparate opinions soon. Good luck. AndyL9 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

Parties who have agreed to Mediation

 * Peter Grey 5 July 2005 00:31 (UTC) - Note that a number of other articles have a problem of AndyL promoting his own original research. Peter Grey 23:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * --gbambino 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) - Note the trail of articles where AndyL has been causing issues by pushing PoV and original research: Monarchist League of Canada, Monarchy in Canada, Commonwealth Realm. As well, the related talk pages: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada/4 Crown all the way down to Talk:Monarchist League of Canada/11 NPOV..., Talk:Monarchy in Canada/13 One Crown or Several?, Talk:Monarchy in Canada/17 Mediation down to Talk:Monarchy in Canada/19 Specifics of existing content, Talk:Monarchist League of Canada/1 Issues concerning this article, Talk:Commonwealth Realm/5 One Crown or Several? --gbambino 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Selection of Mediator
If enough parties agree to Mediation, next step will be selection of a Mediator. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

User:Barneygumble in dispute with User:LeeHunter
A long debate has insued on the Human rights in the United States page over what items are considered human rights. There seems to be no potential for resolution. Using as a basis, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva conventions, I (Barneygumble) contend that the following are not human rights and should be removed: The number and ethnicity of prisoners, the existance of supermax prisons, the lack of full government healthcare, gay marriage, the fact that convicted felons are not allowed to vote, the fact that euthanasia is outlawed, and abortion. These are social issues. My opponents, have offered no real factual basis for their inclusion of these so-called human rights into the article and rely on broad terms like "widely considered." Some others would refuse to discuss my points and then revert my changes citing "censorship." Details of the arguement can be seen here first: and then I finally at least began to get a debate here:


 * I'll volunteer to mediate this if both parties are comfortable with me and are willing to participate in the mediation process. -JCarriker 15:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's fine by me Barneygumble


 * It's fine with me. My position, in brief, is that an article about human rights in the United States obviously must include sources that specifically address human rights in the United States (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International etc) and that an informative article will naturally contrast what are considered rights in other parts of the world with what are considered rights under US law. For example, if universal medical care is considered a basic human right in some countries but not in the United States, we should note this in the article. I'm afraid I'm having some difficulty understanding why BarneyGrumble finds this so deeply objectionable. --Lee Hunter 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has something ot with the fact that is an obvious troll--172.164.98.40 15:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ceske_Budejovice

 * jbetak and NoPuzzleStranger

Request for mediation over a dispute on current name alternatives for České Budějovice. NoPuzzleStranger has initiated a change in this article which is largely POV. His response to several attempts to discuss the need for any change was delayed, curt and POV. During our exchange NoPuzzleStranger has initiated another change to a related article on Plzeň. I call for two things: the Plzeň article should be left unchanged (which NoPuzzleStranger seems to support now) and the České Budějovice article should reflect Budweis as German and English name alternative. These name alternatives are based on former and current use by foreigners and locals alike. Jbetak 30 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)


 * Do parties agree to mediation? Will contact. -SV|t 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
 * The person who accuses me of POV has argued that "What happened to formerly Jewish, German and Magyar towns like Bratislava borders on barbarism and is a real shame". Clearly it's him who's driven by POV here. NoPuzzleStranger 1 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing anyone, that's just your interpretation of my call for mediation. I saw you engage in revert wars before and believe others brought and into mediation before.


 * You have just again reverted an article with a comment "I'll leave Plzen on your version, and you leave that on mine". I didn't write these articles. I did bring to your attention however that you are making a controversial POV change and brought forward some facts to document the continued use of both "Budweis" and "Pilsen". I believe your understanding of both the topic and the spirit of collaboration here on Wikipedia is quite a bit off. Jbetak 1 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming

 * User:NoPuzzleStranger User:Tobias Conradi
 * NoPuzzleStranger is constantly posting lies about my work. I asked him to stop, but he goes on and posts claims at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming that he cannot support by reliable data. Some of his claims are allready proven wrong but he goes on and on. He is really annoying in the way he works. I set up a section in the talk page but he stopped to work there. I finally left his comment, and wrote that this is only comment by him and that he insists on it. Than he said I insist on the content of the whole page, what is a lie. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * now he blanked the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Subnational_entities%2FNaming&diff=0&oldid=15342974
 * Tobias Conradi has gone on a mass-moving campaign in order to install his preferred format for naming subnational entities in a fait accompli, without first establishing a consensus, and despite numerous protests. I was simply trying to point out that fact on WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming - a page entirely written by Tobias Conradi, which he also uses to give the impression that his personal opinion is established policy (e.g. citing that link in edit summaries when he reverts something to his format). The page points out that his format is "current use" - which is true, but only because of his own moves, which number in the thousands. NoPuzzleStranger 13:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * NoPuzzleStranger is again lieing. He did not simply pointed out something, but called my work "crusade". When I asked him to provide statistics for his claim that the status of the "Current use" section is only like that because I unilateraly mass-moved hundreds or thousends of pages he failed to provide this statistics. I left his note in the page but added that this is only a claim by him without statistics. I myself started to provide statistics, showing he was wrong, because all what was current use was either in the format before, moved by me, or reverted by others. All disputes with third parties have been solved. He is also lieing if he states the page was entirely written by me. As can be seen from the history there also where other contributers. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've send both a message reminding them to avoid loaded language and to continue/start talking on their respective user talkpages without accusing each other. We may need to keep an eye on things to avoid further escalation. - Mgm|(talk) 14:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

 * Several editors, but main disputes between Katefan0 and Rangerdude)

A heated and at times very uncivil dispute over numerous sections of the article on this large paper has been raging for about a week and while both sides have conceded some smaller issues, larger ones remain; issues revolve around whether the article is balanced overall and whether several sections are presented properly and in an NPOV fashion. Based on interactions so far, I personally have little to no hope that Rangerdude and I can satisfactorily come to agreement on what remains without some help. The article was listed on RfC about a week ago without much result. There are a couple of other less involved editors who have weighed in on several items, some of which have come to a satisfactory conclusion, but some of which have not, in part because Rangerdude feels that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule his own position. I feel that at this point we need some guidance to help break this stalemate; the way we are proceeding (or not proceeding) now is counterproductive and seems to be devolving into more fingerpointing than talking about content. Rangerdude has said he does not feel mediation is needed. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment for purposes of clarification and factual correction. This dispute has indeed been very heated however it has not been without progress from any reasonable standpoint. User:Katefan0 has adamantly and repeatedly accused me of attempting to introduce POV material into this article, calling me a "POV warrior" among other names, but unfortunately lacks cognizance of her own very strong and often pervasive opinions on the subject of this article. To suggest that I "feel that a consensus of two or three people is not enough to overrule" my position is a blatant misrepresentation that has become characteristic of this individual user against me. The discussion to date has attracted a total of 6 participants by my count, including the two of us and four others who have been far less active. There have been no votes taken, and the sole incident where I have disputed her claims of "consensus" against me involved one single minor point where another editor posted a single brief concurrence with her position. That editor also happens to be the least active among the 6 involved and has not since returned to it to either respond to followup statements or discuss his position. I indicated on the article's talk page that I did not feel mediation was necessary because most of the differences are over phrasings and language used in the article that could be resolved IF Katefan0 would only take the time to identify, propose, and consider alternative options. Despite my repeated invitations for her responses and proposals of alternatives, I cannot even obtain her participation in that. I set up a place to do so on the talk page and made several proposals of my own, soliciting her responses, but each time she's not willing to budge even an inch from her strong POV perch. To indicate the level of hostility towards me that this editor has employed since her very entry into the discussion, she would not even respond to my requests that she reformat her source citations of the material she added to make them consistent with the style used throughout the remainder of the article.


 * As things currently stand, I have made several proposals on some of the disputed language points and solicited her response as well as the response of others. This has involved several compromises and concessions on my part to accomodate her and other points of view, however Katefan0 remains seemingly steadfast in insisting that her own chosen version of a disputed section (which is strongly favorable to her POV) be supplemented for the existing version in full with little to no changes. For obvious reasons this is unacceptable, however I have been fully willing to work towards a compromise on the individual points under discussion. Unfortunately she has not, hence the rub. Thanks. Rangerdude 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the current disputes:
 * 1) Whether a reference to a criminal investigation should use the word "criminal" as is the case in the statute that applies
 * 2) Whether groups should be identified by their legal registration (e.g. "Political Action Committee" and "501(c)6"
 * 3) Whether we should say that the Houston Chronicle was "consistent" between its published editorial and a related memorandum that both endorsed the same ballot position.
 * 4) How to phrase the description of a group's decision not to release its contributor lists ("refused" or "declined" or "chose not to" etc)
 * 5) Whether the Houston Chronicle's self-coverage of a legal dispute it was a party to should be used as a primary source
 * 6) Bringing the source citation methods into consistency Rangerdude 01:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I purposefully did not get into the substance of the disagreements because I feared airing them would overwhelm this page with information that can easily be seen on the article's talk page. I'd be glad to answer any and all claims Rangerdude has made once mediation has been established, but this is not the place to have that discussion so for now I will refrain. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 01:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Support/Join I support the call for mediation on this article and I wish to join the mediation. Johntex 22:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer
See Requests for comment/Eliot Spitzer

Magic: The Gathering
Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Magic: The Gathering. Uncle Ed 18:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

user:gadugi requests administrative sanctions and dispute resolution against user:karmosin
I think the point was sufficiently made. Closed.

Jeff

user:24.146.19.164 is in a dispute with user:Clawson
Hello. I currently need some help fixing a dispute with Clawson, who is continually removing messages I place on my talk page, and then repeatedly posting messages accusing me of being in violation of Wikipedia policy, including accusing me of VANDALISM when I delete his messages from my own talk page. I believe I am being unfairly accused, though, as a new user of Wikipedia, I may have precipitated this attack by accidentally stepping on toes.

Please be aware that I have taken repeated steps to resolve this dispute before bringing it to this level, even going to the point of contacting Chris in a single friendly phone call to his publicized phone number. I attempted to do this to envoke the heightened empathy and understanding that verbal communication often achieves, though he responded by hanging up on me as soon as I identified myself, and then using Wikipedia to call me a stalker, which I believe is a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, to which I have been introduced by more helpful members of the community.

Please help as soon as possible, as Chris's repeated messages are hampering my use of Wikipedia. I will request that he wait until mediation before continuing to modify my talk page, though I am sure he will agree. 24.146.19.164 01:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris has continued his attacks, despite my request that he cease them until the end of the mediation process. As well, it has come to my attention that Chris has been warned about this sort of behaviour before, as evidenced by the scolding he received from at least one editor on his current talk page. As well, the following link includes more evidence of his prior abuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clawson&oldid=23799147. To some extent, I am relieved that, in past cases like this, Chris has been prevented from further attacks, but I don't understand why he's still allowed to access Wikipedia, when it seems clear that he's a repeat offender. 24.146.19.164 02:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The above diff provided as "evidence" shows an edit by a very persistent racist vandal who has been blocked for six months after making multiple personal attacks on various editors and administrators. Also, has been blocked for 24 hours for his violation of the three-revert rule. My reversion of his edits contrary to the Manual of Style, as well as my requests that he not blank his Talk page where he had been warned about his 3RR violation, seem to have been his grounds for requesting mediation. *shrug*. Wouldn't be the first time I annoyed an anon who was acting contrary to policy/guidelines.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

unsigned request that was left here before
requests administrative sanctions and dispute resolution

I was recently blocked for a while for substituting Juris Doctor and/or J.D. for law degree in biographies. The blocker said that the reference to the specific name of the degree constituted the use of "jargon." Why does his opinion control rather than mine? He did not say the same thing about the D.D.S., M.B.A.,M.D., or Ph.D. degrees. As a holder of a J.D., I am tired of seeing the name of this degree witheld from publication on the ground that people are unfamiliar with it. The reason they are unfamiliar with it is that it is so rarely named in publications. The J.D. has been awared by all United States law schools since 1971. And, J.D. is after all, the origial doctorate, having first been awarded during medievil times by the University of Bologa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.140.181 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 September 2005


 * The reason you were blocked had more to do with your failure to communicate than the contents of your edits. You are welcome to make any edits you want, but if someone has a problem with your edits you need to be willing to discuss it rather than acting unilaterally. Honestly, I thought you were a bot since you didn't reply to any of my messages and you were editing such a large number of articles (a bot is a script that automatically goes through hundreds of articles making the exact same edit). Sorry if my actions seemed heavy-handed, but without any reply from you, I was forced to assume the worst. Kaldari 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not reply earlier because I did not see your messages (Now I know to be on the lookout for messages). However,I do not know the method for replying, except on this board (which I only discovered yesterday.)

64.171.224.83 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)lambejim

Iraq War info on Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century
A user with the IP address 153.104.16.114 insists on adding the following info to the timeline's description of the Iraq War: "...Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime, which largely favored Sunni muslims; giving rise to greater power among the Shi'a and the Kurds in the country." I feel this info is inappropriate because the jury is still out on what the long-term effects of the war will be, and focusing on these apparent effects tends to give the description an un-objective, pro-war slant. Though I had previously advocated a description that mentioned WMD and the lack thereof, I am comfrotable with limiting the description to the objective facts: "A coalition spearheaded by the United States invades Iraq, leading to the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime." However, every time I change the timeline, 153.104.16.114 vandalizes the page and refuses to respond to my requests to explain his additions, instead claiming that he has Wikipedia policy on his side (without reference to any specific clause) and labeling me an "anti-War zealot". Provided that 153.104.16.114 is willing to reason (as yet, he has not indicated such a willingness), I feel that mediation would be appropriate in this circumstance. BalancingAct 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree mediation is necessary on this issue. The information I've added is pertinent to Islamic history, and does not present any kind of pro-war bias. The jury is not "out" on the increase of political power among the non-Sunni sects in Iraq. The ramifications of this are yet to be seen, however, the immediate effects of broader political say among Shi'ites and the Kurdish minority have already been seen in transitional governments. For some reason these facts are removed, despite their significance to Islamic history by a number of political ideologues who have no desire towards discussion or reason, and have taken their bias to the last place it belongs, a factual encyclopedia. Never are these effects claimed to justify or debunk the invasion of Iraq, nor do they suggest the Sunni leadership of Iraq prior to the war was inferior. 153.104.16.114 00:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about adding some say this will give rise to greater power among the Shi'a and the Kurds in the country.? --Uncle Ed, Mediator. Uncle Ed 13:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that solves the problem at all, because again, why concentrate on the power balance issue? It is by no means the most important issue. We could just as easily say, "some say the war has led to an irreversible increase in distrust and hostility towards the United States in the Muslim World," or "some say the war has strengthened extremist groups, who have used the invasion as a recruiting tool." Each of these are true (the fact that such comments have been made, not necessarily the comments themselves), but they tend to make the war look bad, and isolating these effects out of the myriad consequences this war has had for Islam and the Muslim World would give the description an anti-War tint. Similarly, the info about the post-War power balance gives the description a pro-War tint. At this point, I think it is best to refrain from commenting on the War's effects because we're still seeing the effects unfold, and it will be a number of years before we can look back and definitively say, "The Iraq War resulted in X." BalancingAct 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Inactive. Uncle Ed 02:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

User:DKorn in dispute with User:Gorgonzilla and others
I am a new user but from the very first I have been subjected to calumny and personal attacks at the Ray Nagin article. A user Aquillon reverted my very first edit blanking an entire section with no other explanation than the accusation I was a "sock." Despite my explanation for the edit in the discussion page and a request any mods to my edit be explained in my edit summary, Aquillon provided none. I left a message at his talk page. He refused to reply. Later an editor named Gorgonzilla answered for Aquillon (is this evidence they are sockpuppets?) with what I'd call nonsense claiming my ver batim excerpts from an official document were POV. Gorgonzilla also provided me with another official reference on the talk page which he indicated refuted my edit but, in fact, his reference supported my edit. At any rate, I consider their edits to be "partial blanking vandalism" and would appreciate a review by neutral parties. My edit can be found here. It's the section called "Mayor Nagin's Responsibility During and After Hurricane Katrina." If you agree with my edit please inform Gorgonzilla/Aquillon and me, if you agree with him/them please let me know why on my talk page. If you agree with their tactic of personal attacks please let me know that also. Thanks. --DKorn 20:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved to Dropped / Abandoned as I doubt that both parties want this, good faith is a question, and DKorn hasn't edited since the 22nd when he made 2 edits. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over membership and conduct on WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit
There has been an RFC on the page itself, not on individual user conduct RFC.

Users involved:


 * User:Banes
 * User:Noitall
 * User:Agriculture
 * User:Erwin Walsh
 * User:MONGO
 * User:Hipocrite
 * User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (says he has no interest in mediation)

All users have been notified. The original intent was to file an RFAr, however we are willing to try mediation first, see User_talk:Noitall and hope that it will be productive.


 * Okay I don't know the time stamp for this. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Radiant and Tony Sidaway
Radiant seems to be showing extreme impatience with my recent conduct, making what to me seem to be quite incomprehensible accusations, and making apparently arbitrary challenges to my VfD closes, and even going so far as to attempt to edit the policy documents so as to favor his opinion and restrict my scope of action as a sysop--and, consequently, the scope of action of all sysops who would come after me. While on the face of it this to me seems like the antithesis of what a wiki is about, I'm sure he has a point, but I just don't understand it and I find myself in a position where I cannot predict where his next apparently weird accusation will come from. I've complied in a half-hearted manner with some unofficial mediation attempts, but I think it's time to get serious. What on earth is up? I'm honestly dying to know. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (Moved to talk page.)
 * Relevant RfC: Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway

Any animus Radiant might have held against me seems to have dissipated somewhat, and I never held any against him. I'd be happy to close this as there seem to be no extant problems. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)