Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 06

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

User:RK and Traditional Chinese medicine

I am requesting mediation due to RK's unprovoked personal attacks against me. I responded by asking him to stop, on his talk page. Since then, he has associated me with Nazism, which offends me deeply. He has not responded to my request to him. These incidents came about because of what I (and others) considered his vandalism on the traditional Chinese medicine page. There is history at the talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine page, as well as on my talk page. User:Marshman has taken over here, but it is unclear if he is attempting to be a neutral party, and I suspect not since he has so far ignored the personal attacks against me, even when I brought them up directly. He has also imbedded my postings in the middle of his own, and made his a larger font, posting his comments before and after my own. Seems like an odd practice to me, but perhaps I am still new here. I ceased editing on this page when things got personal. I have posted this problem to Village pump without response so far, as well as Vandalism in progress. Assistance please. I am no longer interested in communicating directly with RK without some resolution. Thanks. heidimo 16:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Initial contact by User:TUF-KAT

Mediation declined.

User:Kevin baas and User:Charles Matthews

Mediation requested by Kevin Baas. Mediated by Angela. Ended August 2004 with Kevin's statement "I am happy with the results of the mediation, and consider it completed."

User:Kevin baas and User:Dwindrim

Requested by Kevin Baas 23:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Statement of User:Kevin baas as starting point for the mediation process.

I am concerned with Dwindrim's behavior in violoation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, esp. regarding:

My goals in this mediation

A formal apology from Dwindrim, for his personal attacks on VfD-Fractional electrodynamics and our user talk pages User talk:Kevin baas, User talk:Dwindrim, as well as his uncivility and generally rude behavior.
Guarantee that he will refrain from this in the future, with other users as well as me.
Guarantee that he will use the talk pages appropriately, and respect other people's freedom of speech and right to equal representation.
Respecting this, a formal apology for burying my comments in the upper section of the talk page, which is historically misleading and contradicts:
1. the purposes of refactoring a page as stated by the guidelines and policies, and
2. the general guidleine of talk pages proceeding vertically, as stated by the guidelines and policies.
His general acknowledgement, given the above, of his violation of the principle of the wikipedian community in regards to treating members of the community with respect and decency, and
A guarantee that he will refrain from such behavior in the future.

Statement of Denni re. the behavior of Kevin Baas, submitted 2004 April 18, 0340 UTC

I am concerned with User:Kevin baas' behavior in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, esp. regarding:

Stated goals in mediation

I seek confirmation that Mr. Baas has clear understanding of the degree of sanctity of a user's talk page.
I seek a clear and stated recognition by Mr. Baas that, with the exception of discussions related directly to editorial issues, and then only on the appropriate article talk page, I have no wish to communicate with him in any way, shape, or form.
I seek confirmation from Mr. Baas that articles he publishes will be properly credentialed, and that he will refrain from publishing original research.
I seek confirmation from Mr. Baas that he will avoid the use of direct or implied profanity toward other members of the Wikipedia community except where that profanity is clearly not intended to offend.
I seek acknowledgement by Mr. Baas that his harrassment resulted in a loss of opportunity for me to work on contributions to Wikipedia as a consequence of his filibustering.

Mr. Baas has chosen to extend this confrontation following a comment I made regarding one of his articles. The comment, "delete with prejudice" is a common term on the VfD page, but Mr. Baas immediately accused me of prejudice against himself, and no statement to the contrary seemed to convince him. While he continually espoused values such as "communication" and "civillity", he failed to demonstrate them, and to make matters worse, failed to show that he even understood the terms.

I would also like to express some concern regarding points 2 and 5 of Mr. Bass' goals. He uses the words "other users" and "members", which implies an accusation that I have, as he puts it, "demonstrated uncivility and generally rude behavior" toward other Wikipedians. Yet the evidence he offers to support such a linguistic construction is the same as that which he used to support fractional geometry and fractional paradigm; that is to say, nothing but bluster. A quick read of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fractional electrodynamics should also be an indicator of Mr. Baas' ability to talk the talk, but inability to walk the walk.

I am not looking for any apologies. First, there is no guarantee of sincerity in an apology. Second, it often allows the perpetrator of a misdeed the luxury of repeating that same misdeed when well-meaning people assume sincerity. I ask only for Mr. Baas to acknowledge that he carried out the actions as stated.

All have agreed for Angela to be the mediator.

User Snowspinner and User Sam Spade

In the Heteronormativity article, Sam Spade felt that the article was POV. I attempted to correct it, and, after making edits, asked on the talk page whether the NPOV tag could now be safely removed. There was no objection, and I removed the tag. However, Sam has listed the page on RfC, saying that it is a mess of POV. In conversation with him, he has indicated that he does not believe the talk page of Heteronormativity to be a useful location for discussion of the matter. Since he seems to think the situation has deteriorated to that point, I feel outside mediation would be helpful. For additional places in which discussion with Sam has happened on this matter, check Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2004 3, Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2004 4, User talk:Snowspinner, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. (Please note that I'm out all weekend, so I'm not going to be able to comment further on this until Monday the 26th). Snowspinner 06:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The above is accurate, and since I have no serious interpersonal problems w SS, I don't see how mediation is appropriate. Seems silly to me, all I want is for people to go read the page, and get involved on the talk page. He seems to think I should be involved in the talk, which is strange since he was quite unfriendly and dismissive, telling me that my lack of expertise invalidated my thoughts and edits on the subject. My guess is that being new to the wiki, he doesn't yet understand some of the processes. I guess we'll have to wait till monday to find out tho, since he was so kind as to place this here just before vacating ;) Sam Spade 06:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This debate is not just between Snowspinner and Sam Spade. Snowspinner came in rather late, while the edit war with Sam Spade had been going on some time. Also, Snowspinners edits have not exactly been uncontroversial, either. So if there are only two people are supposed to speak out here, Snowspinner is certainly not the one who should do it, since he has been trying to hijack the page for is Critical Theory project, which is only marginally better than Sam Spade's behaviour. Not to mention that the procedure calls for a Request for comments before mediation, which Snowspinner simply tried to delete. So if somebody is supposed to be "the other" speaker, I suggest user:Patrick0Moran who has been helping with the article much earlier than Snowspinner, and has, unlike Snowspinner, not started an edit war himself.
I myself have to admitt that I am not exactly patient about the article any more, either, because the page has been in 3 1/2 edit wars since March 20th, which is why I too would appreciate outside input. However, there are two issued that are being disputed, one is Sam's NPOV claim, the other Snowspinners Critical Theory box. Most of these debates have been moved to the archives. I'd therefore appreciate if somebody could make any suggestions on how to proceede, "Request for comments" first, maybe, and/or two mediations or a mediation between three partys? -- AlexR 13:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I considered there two be two disputes at hand - the project box and the NPOV. Apparently discussions of whether the article are NPOV have broken down beyond the point of communication, whereas the project box is still being discussed on the page, making me not think mediation is required on that issue. Certainly, though, if you feel the project box is beyond the point of possible discussion, we can attempt to bring that to mediation too. Snowspinner 14:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I requested comments on the box issue, but felt obliged to mention it here, since everybody looking at the debate now will be a bit confused otherwise. I do not feel that it is possible to come to a consensus about those boxes, but wanted a RfC first. BTW, a general debate about those boxes - all of them, not just the two on Heteronormativity - seems to be desperately needed.
The issue about mediation is also that you claim you are having a problem with Sam Spade, but you know, Sam Spade was a problem before you even came into the debate (or the Wikipedia). So why should you be one of the two participants in the debate? You made many dubious changes in the article yourself; even if we managed to resolve most of these issues, I do not think you should be the one speaking for the article as it stands now. (Nor me, for that matter.) -- AlexR 14:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I do not refuse mediation, rather I find it silly and awkward, and in my eyes what is best for the page is exactly what is happening, critical peer review. There was a goodly amount of "your the enemy so I won't respect you enough to communicate" or "your not an academic specialist in this area, so I won't respect you enough to communicate" dynamics, regular reverts/near complete lack of compromise, and an editorial majority profoundly removed from conventional demographics, all of which displayed to me that this page needed help, and debating with those who were unwilling or unable to rationally discuss the pertinant matters was proving ineffective. Request for comment was the clear answer, and when Snow deleted that... it just wasn't a good sign. It told me there was a cover-up, a desire to keep the status quo on this ideosyncratic, unrepresentitive article about a bizarre and offensive topic. In summary, the article needs peer review stat, and I am willing to "mediate" if it is deemed appropriate and necessary by "the powers that be" (yes, I do indeed invoke your name, oh mighty Angela ;). Sam Spade 18:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"A bizarre and offensive topic"—with those words, Sam, you tell me you ought to be excusing yourself from any further debate on this issue. Regardless of your thoughts and feelings about gay/lesbian/transgender/gender identity issues, it remains that these things exist. People suffering from Turner's Syndrome or Swyver's Syndrome or even the more common transgendered males and females do not need to hear that they are either "bizarre" or "offensive". I'm ashamed of you, Sam. Please correct me if I have somehow misinterpreted your statement.Denni 04:19, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

No, don't invoke me. Having somehow gotten myself involved in the argument over one of the boxes, I recuse myself from any mediation processes related to this article, or the series of articles the Critical Theory box might be used in. Angela . 19:47, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Requests for Comment is the place for this at the moment. The box issue is one that is wider than this article, and certainly needs discussion, but that is more of a policy issue. I don't think mediation has a part in this. The neutrality issue may benefit from mediation at some point but I think RfC is more appropriate for now. With the number of people involved it seems to me that mediation would be less successful than seeking consensus through discussion and (possibly) polls. It certainly seems that with the number of people involved in this discussion mediation between Sam and Snowspinner would be inappropriate. -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee member)

As a note, I was not requesting mediation over box issues, as that was still being worked out productively on talk pages. To my knowledge, no request for mediation on the boxes has been made at this point. The mediation request I made was entirely on POV issues, because apparently the issue was such that those who believe that the article is POV feel the talk pages for the article are too hostile or poisonous a place to carry on the debate. That is the only thing that mediation has been requested over. If someone who has been working on the article longer than I have really wants to represent the viewpoint that the article is NPOV, I'm happy to step aside on that. Snowspinner 18:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, understood. I still think RfC is the place for this for now. I'll leave this here for another day or so to allow any mediators with a different opinion to comment, then archive for now. If another request is made in the future we will look again. In either case I will have to recuse myself from this one because of personal bias. -- sannse (talk) 21:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User Wheeler with others

Wheeler with AndyL, Jwrosenweig, Slrubenstein. I am trying to put the correct defintion of Reactionary on the site. I quote from The Governments of Europe on the original meaning of reactionary which is monarchists. The name of their party was the "Reactionary Party". These people and others will not allow me to put that in the article. No one touched this site Until I did, and all of a sudden they all show up. I put in monarchy. They insist upon putting "authoritarian" before it. I put in the White Russians as reactionaries fighting against "Bolsheviks". They reverted this twice. But this is the truth. They don't want "Bolsheviks" on the site contrary to White Russians. There is extreme POV on that site. I found two quotes from sources that call the founding Fathers of America, "reactionary". Because they were reactionary against democracy and Jacobism. They will not allow me to put that in the article.

Next, On Classic Definition of Republic, I quote from the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature Where they say, "The translation of the word Republic by the Latins caused century of misleading". Someone changes it to "altering its meaning". Are these people who reverted my direct quote from the Oxford book, classicists? are they in greater knowledge than the Classicists of Oxford? This simple changing of "misleading" to "altering meaning" is not right and it is propaganda, and it is wrong.

Constantly, I am being badgered and reverted constantly by a determined group of people. I want this to stop. Read the talk pages of "reactionary", they won't accept any of my quotes but they use no quotes and no references. I Need Help because things are not working out.WHEELER 15:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This goup of people will not allow "OLD" things. I am constantly being told, only modern definitions apply. The Oxford English Dictionary uses the old meaning comes first. What do we follow here? What is the policy here? I tried once to find out and it got deleted? What is the Laws and rules of defining here? Will someone PLEASE answer me. WHEELER 15:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would someone please answer me on the policy of Wikipedia; is it revisionism or the "Law of Strict Continuity"? What laws are followed? Because they have now slanted the meaning of reactionary is now being a Fascist. I want some professionals here. I want an authority of encyclopaedias. I want the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary. I want an authority of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I want some authority to go to. What is going on here?WHEELER 15:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the total lunacy of what is going on at Wikipedia. I have posted Songs of the Third Reich. Where they sing, "We want no reaction". This group of people now, have made the meaning of a reactionary to be Fascist. Fascists sing "We want no reaction" which now means according to AndyL and others is that Fascists sing "We want no Fascists". This is a sign of totall ludicriousness. This is absolute lunacy. Reactionary is primarily the monarchists. The songs would make sense if Reactionary means monarchism and Christianity and this is in the l930's. The total hypocrisy of what is going on is absolutely funny to behold.WHEELER 16:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This place is a joke.WHEELER 16:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have you asked for community comment yet? You also might consider outlining specific points and inviting other users to vote in a poll. This might help in showing the consensus view. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more advice. You questions on policy are better asked at the Village Pump, it's not the mediation committee's role to make rulings on policy. -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee member)

West Papua

Request that West Papuan Genocide be reverted to West_Papuan_Genocide&oldid=3368272; and the pages Attacks in West New Guinea and Human rights violations in western New Guinea be deleted. The explanation of the article is in it's introduction; the G* word has been used in accord with the Yale University study integral to the article; the title of the country in question is the common English name (West Papua) as found on the titles and texts of most of the external reports listed. The two name changes were done without prior discussion and with dis-reguard to the continuing work on the article resulting in the current multiple versions of content.Daeron 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation isn't the place to ask for pages to be reverted. Mediators do not make judgments about content, but try to help the two parties come to an agreement about it. If the page needs to be protected, there is requests for page protection. Perhaps this is still at the wikipedia:requests for comment stage. If you do think mediation is needed now, can you say who it is that you want to enter mediation with please. Angela . 17:39, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I will instead enter this as a request for protection.Daeron 17:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade, User:GrazingshipIV

moved into a separate section from the request for mediation between GrazingshipIV and Hcheney by BCorr|Брайен 13:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would like mediation w GrazingshipIV myself, due to repeated slander, harassment and abuse, most clearly evident on his talk page. Sam Spade 07:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I officially recuse myself from this request in light of the concerns Sam Spade had with my becoming a mediator (now at Wikipedia:Requests_to_be_mediator/archive). BCorr|Брайен 13:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Initial contact by sannse (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I will not enter into mediation with Sam because my issues with him are deeper than his trollish (and now vandalistic) behavior, which could possiby be resolved through mediation.

His constant pushing of his POV (in this case racism) makes our differences impossible to reconcile. He knows that his actions have led to the posting (he made) on my talk page to stay until may. He was told it would last longer the more he vandalized my page and did so anyway (causing Danny to protect the page).

Sams personal issues or faults are beyond my or anyone else's ability to correct from my standpoint. So no, I will not accept mediation because it would give Sam a forum to spew his venom at me. It also should be noted that this case came after I submitted one (which is further evidence of trolling). Thanks anyway Sannse. :) GrazingshipIV 18:32, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the response GrazingshipIV. Sam I'm sorry we can't help in this instance. Perhaps I could suggest a period of determined avoidance from both sides? Maybe that will allow things to calm enough for mediation to be useful in the future. -- sannse (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]