Seminarist

NPOV on John Zizioulas page

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Zizioulas. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not vandalised the John Zizioulas page. You appear to be retaliating to my removal of vandalism which you placed on the John Zizioulas page by adding a vandalism tag to my talk page. The reason I added a vandalism tag was your picture of Zizioulas sitting beside the Pope which had been labelled 'Picture of the John Zizioulas (black robe) revealing his true face and position.' Please see Wikipedia BLP.

Yes you have. You are promoting "pro" Zizioulas view by calling all those who disagree with you "vandals". Your attempt to hide the fact that many people disagree with his work is obvious. What is very low is the way you are tying to do it.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Being derogatory does not help build consensus.

You are wrong - I am not trying to hide any views. I only want the article to be encyclopedic and NPOV. I would be very glad if you would provide NPOV verifiable descriptions of criticisms of Zizioulas.

Seminarist (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Description of Image:MZizijulas.jpg

Fixed CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Seminarist (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resorted and will get protection if it happens again. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Seminarist (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your addition to WP:3O

Hey. I've removed your addition to 3O because it's not an issue that 3O deals with. If an editor is being uncivil, I would recommend you take it to WP:WQA. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Zizioulas. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation

Would you like me to set the mediation page to new, so another mediator to pick it up, or to closed, so it will not continue? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could set it to new, for someone else to pick up, that would be good. Thanks, Seminarist (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll mediate the case, if that's acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, before I say yes or no, I'd like to know how you would mediate? The reason why the last mediation broke down was that in around 80-90% of Cebactokpatop's edits, he either went directly against the parameters of the mediation (e.g. adding and removing text when it was explicitly stipulated by the mediator that at that point no text was to be added or removed), or he successively reverted proposals of mine on false grounds (i.e. three times reverting a proposal I made, accusing me of deleting material, when in fact I had not deleted any material - and even though I explained clearly that I had not deleted any material). In these circumstances, the previous mediator was not willing to intervene to keep the mediation on track, and this led to the breakdown of the mediation. If you were the mediator, what would you do when Cebactokpatop acted in such a way? Would you intervene to bring the mediation back on course, or would you - as the previous mediator admitted he was doing - 'evade' intervention, thereby allowing Cebactokpatop to derail the mediation? Since it has been my consistent experience with Cebactokpatop that he tries to force his way by repeatedly reverting any material he doesn't like, giving false or bogus grounds, it is imperative to me to know at the outset how you would act in such a situation (as I have every reason to think that a mediator will need to intervene in such a manner if the mediation is to have any chance of being successful). Seminarist (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm thinking we should keep the article fully protected, and delete the subpage copy. From there, we can start discussions about the tagged sentences, focusing on whether sources exist to verify the individual statements. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually answered my question. If you were to mediate, would you be willing to intervene to keep mediation on track, if a user in the mediation successively reverted proposals of another user in the mediation on false grounds? Seminarist (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I would be willing to reasonable steps to keep the mediation on track. PhilKnight (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case then I'm very happy to proceed to a new round of mediation with you mediating. Seminarist (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

John Zizioulas mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Zizioulas, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.Seminarist (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Cebactokpatop

Hi, I want to query you on moving the RfC on Cebactokpatop. Since the page was created by Allyne, who wants an RfC on Cebactokpatop, and I signified my agreement and added to the page, it seems clear that the two-person threshhold has been met? Seminarist (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please ensure the certifiers add their sigs to the Users certifying the basis for this dispute subsection, and feel free to move the RfC to the approved section at WP:RFCC. Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure evidence of you trying and failing to resolve the dispute are provided in the forms of diffs - entire talk pages and claims of mediation without diffs are not acceptable and may result in the Rfc being delisted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I went and re-archived it because not only has nothing additional happened in over two months, but the person who the RfC was against hasn't edited in over a month. Wizardman 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. fair enough. I'll try and get some fresh eyes to look at it. Do you think the article could be unprotected now? Maybe nothing will happen, maybe he'll return, but it's probably a good option to do that to see what happens. Wizardman 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand if the conduct is not a problem currently (whether it's because he's not editing and because there's no recent evidence), RFCs are archived. If he recommences editing in the same manner that has you concerned, then you may reopen the RFC. In such a case, I myself will take a look and respond accordingly. Please also be aware that you are approaching WP:3RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)