Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Men's rights movement

A mediation request is drastically premature. Jay has not made a good faith attempt to engage about the content issues that have been brought up by numerous editors (including, primarily, me) on the talk page of the relevant articles. Although I'm not too familiar with the RFM process, I do not think that there could be any point in engaging it before all involved editors have tried to actually discuss the content issues in dispute. Kevin (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Fluffernutter being brought into this?
I don't think this meditation request is really needed, especially since it appears folks don't quite understand (or want to understand) Wikipedia policy. But, Fluffernutter hasn't even edited the article Men's rights or dealt with any of the revamping of it. She merely did her job as an admin in reverting copyright vios and an article creation that Jay claimed was created out of consensus (citation needed). Ah well, I trust the mediators to handle this appropriately. SarahStierch (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And is Kratch even supposed to be an agreeing party in the meditation if it's only between Fluffernutter and Jay? I'm a little confused, but, I don't know enough about meditations. SarahStierch (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think its an extension of the general complaints at http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/wiki-reeks/#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni  (talk • contribs)  03:13, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)
 * If I was in the wrong to list myself, then I apologize. I was not aware the requests were restricted to only two parties and also mistook a notice by Jay stating he initiated a request as an invitation to join it, given my recent participation in the men's rights discussions.--Kratch (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As to Fluffernutter's involvement, I believe, is due to his closure and redirect of an attempt to create a men's rights movement page, as per the original intent of the men's right page that has since been gutted. An action that should have been performed when "men's rights" was deemed to mean a discussion of men's rights in the general civil liberties perspective, rather than the civil movement perspective. After all, to redefine a page to mean something other than it's original intent, and then not to provide a place for that original intent, instead removing it altogether, is nothing short of underhanded. But to further propagate this by shutting down attempts to rectify the issue is a serious issue. --Kratch (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious issues with this request
This request was initiated by User:Jayhammers (now blocked for harassment of User:Kgorman-ucb), as Jayhammers clearly posts on his userpage he has a serious conflict of interest. This not a matter for the medcab. The issues are behavioural and content related (the content matters should be handled at WP:COIN, WP:RSN and/or WP:NPOVN not here - the behavioral issues are serious and are what ANi & RfAr are for). There is also an alarming appearance of further single purpose accounts (there are at least 1 on each side of this dispute) which have plagued this area previously (as well as offsite commentary which as also previously caused problems in this area with regard to encouraging single purpose accounts from "both sides"). If there is (and I can see there is) a real issue around what the Men's rights page should focus on the parties should use the RFC function to request outside comment not attempt to leap frog over the first act of dispute resolution - seeking outside input based on third party sources. Furthermore mediators should be aware that a request that fails AGF (calling good faith edits "vandalism"), lists an uninvolved admin (Fluffnutter), and complains about the standards of WP:V and WP:RS (as Kratch has done) should be rejected out of hand - these are policy matters and site standards not up for negotiation. I'm not saying these users don't have a point, merely that mediation is the wrong option (and if Jayhammers' and Kratch's current style of interaction continues to breach WP:HARASS or WP:CIVIL, mediation will be impossible anyway)-- Cailil  talk 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel that we "may" have a point, I would be interested in knowing the appropriate options available to me to address that point that will not violate WP:HARASS or WP:CIVIL? As you have already acknowledged on my talk page, I am new to wikipedia editing and it's policies. --Kratch (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)