Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/02

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Cartesian materialism

The Cartesian materialism article has a POV dispute. A philosopher who is a recent opponent of Cartesian Materialism has developed a very particular definition of the concept which he then dismisses. The dispute is about whether such a definition should be included as part of the definition of the concept or discussed later in the text. For example, if a philosopher defines the earth as a ball of custard and then denies that the earth could exist would it be right for Wikipedia to begin the article on "Earth" with "Earth is a ball of custard"? Furthermore, if Wikipedia did include such a definition then it might become widely accepted by naive readers who would then be persuaded that the Earth does not indeed exist ie: including such definitions is a POV and perversion of Wikipedia. Surely the correct approach is to define Earth in the usual way then, if the philosopher's ideas are widely known, to mention in the article that some people think earth is a ball of custard.

The dispute that needs mediation is between User:Alienus and myself. I believe the following version of the article is fair: old version Alienus will not permit any version except [1] and has reverted to this endlessly or made minor edits and then demanded that people "contribute" rather than revert. loxley 10:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Loxley tried for an RfA but was rejected. In response, he was told to go for an RfC. Therefore, we should be doing an RfC now, not wasting your time with another RfM. And I say another because we had one before and Loxley was incorrigible. This is just a waste of time and I will not participate in it until an RfC is attempted. Alienus 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it, and I'm starting to wonder if Loxley has crossed the line into Abuse of process. He's launched personal attacks during mediation and arbitration. He's dragged me into this utterly pointless dispute process and wasted my time.

Fundamentally, his changes are just plain bad. They're factually inaccurate and show gobs of bias against Dennett. He has made explicitly biased statements against Dennett, so this isn't just in my head. Allowing his changes would be contrary to doing the right thing. Alienus

Previous request for mediation

This request for mediation has been put forward because Alienus and myself have been unable to come to any agreement and the debate disintegrates. There is a history to this dispute.

It was part of a request for mediation by User:Alienus the mediation is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind

We were unable to obtain any prolonged third party input so the debate disintegrated. Given that the problem was a single issue I pushed it to arbitration, hoping that the arbitrators would simply decide the point one way or another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F2.2F0.2F0.29

The result of the arbitration was:

"Despite what loxley says, I feel that this is to a large extent a content dispute. If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject. James F. (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reject as not a significant dispute, but I take the point that the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett. Fred Bauder 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)"

I have opened the issue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Religion_and_philosophy as the arbitrators suggested.

However, we do need mediation, please. loxley 09:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true only if Loxley is speaking in the royal plural. Otherwise, we don't need mediation. Loxley does want it, because he's hoping he can once again find someone who doesn't have the time to do the research to discover that Loxley has a long-standing bias against Dennett and seeks to vandalize articles so as to denigrate Dennett.

In my opinion, what we actually need is for Loxley to recognize that there is no place here for his anti-Dennett POV. Nothing short of this will resolve the problem he caused by his complete and total lack of objectivity and relevant knowledge. Alienus 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Venona, List of Americans in the Venona papers, and Harry Magdoff and espionage

Everything below on this request is copies in from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Seemd like the most neutral approach. Sorry if it is too long.

I have already been through more than one month of a failed mediation over Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage and several realted pages pages with Nobs01, which then turned into a weeks-long arbitration in which Nobs01 was banned for a year. I am currently in a content battle with an editor deleting my edits and pledging to defend all of Nobs01 text entries. I have twice filed RFC's on these pages. The current one has produced no comments. In the meantime, all the text I would like comments on gets deleted. What do you seriously suggest? I have been trying to edit these pages for three months. I keep trying different wording and rewriting text. All I get in return is deletions. If I request mediation, I will be told to try "dispute resolution." I have been in dispute resolution on these pages for months. Give me a concrete suggestion that deals with these facts, please. I am desperate.--Cberlet 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically we have a user who has shown up following the ban of another user who is vowing to carry on that user's edit war? Phil Sandifer 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is more complicated than that, but not by much. God knows I am partly to blame for getting so frustrated. But I do try to discuss the matter and actually try to re-edit the material in various ways. But essentially this is a defense by an editor of Nobs01's one-side rendition of history in which my text cited to reputable published scholars is simply deleted because it is dubbed off-topic, or a minority viewpoint, or commie propaganda. I do not dispute that I am citing a a minority viewpoint, but I am arguing that some skeptical material from reputable published sources deserves inclusion. Here are some typical comments from Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage (and I forgot to mention List of Americans in the Venona papers):

I have all the time in the world to ensure you dont destroy all the hard work that Nobs has put into VENONA related articles. But I suppose it must really irk you that "Chip Berlet", respected author, writer and self described "right wing watchdog" is being outwitted and out argued by a 28 year old engineer, who takes break during modeling, to contribute to an encyclopedia. Busy indeed.

you have attempted to cram Navasky's weak ass defense in every article related to this subject

And just for the record, don’t you even for a moment doubt Navasky’s motivation sin this debate? I mean, how many individuals fingered over the past decade has “The Nation Magazine” had on its payroll at some time? At least a dozen or so. I swear, its like the left is suffering from some form of collective cognitive dissonance over the issue of Soviet cold war penetration in the US.

So this is basically a POV warrior defending Nobs01's edits. Nobs01 was banned for amazing personal attacks, not the edit war, but my experience during the mediation led me to believe that Nobs01 was not able to get beyond his own highly POV view of reality to allow any critical disagreement or complication of the issues. That's where we are again. Same outcome on the text pages. I dread the thought of going back into mediation over the same pages, but...what else is there?--Cberlet 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean absolutely no insult, but I would be inclined to believe, having also edited these articles that your accusations of others having a POV or that THEY are the only ones who are POV warriors, is a big stretch. I think there is a strong polarization there of politics and there was also evidence of suspicious information removal on associated articles that I commented on in the talk pages here:[2]. I'd be willing to make the articles conform completely with NPOV, but not if the current revert wars in all the related articles won't cease.--MONGO 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any way involved in "suspicious information removal." In a number of instances I have actually edited out of these articles text that I support in an effort to find a compromise. I have tried different wordings. I have added text that supports the other side of the dispute in an attempt to find NPOV. The editor who defends Nobs01's text simply reverts what I write. I do not for a moment claim that I do not have a POV on this dispute, but I really think it is unfair for anyone to imply that I am involved in "suspicious information removal," or that I only am reverting. Both of these claims are false. On all of these pages the overwhelming bulk of text reflects one specific POV. Attempts to edit the relatively small skeptical and critical sections get reverted.

Please recall that I spent over one month in a mediation process over these same pages which went in circles and revealed, at least to me, that Nobs01 was probably incapable of constructive collective editing. Despite this, I continued to engage in the mediation, until Nobs01 began an aggressive campaign of personal attacks that resulted in me filing an arbitration that resulted in his being banned for one year. (And there is evidence that Nobs01 briefly reappeared under a different name to edit some of these pages until being booted off).

Nobs01 introduced biased and sometimes factually flawed and exaggerated claims on scores of pages. His posting of claims that hundreds of Americans had been identified as "Soviet spies" by the "U.S. Government" was a fantastic hyberbolic exaggeration. Am I going to be cyberstalked across the project by a POV warrior who has pledged to defend Nob01's text--factual or not--fair or not--if I try to edit it to be accurate and NPOV? Do you want an encyclopedia where the majority view gets to stomp on the minority view; and where exaggerated and false claims get defended based on political POV backed by bullying? Or do you want a real encyclopedia that fairly explores disputes cited to reputable published sources? If I ask for mediation again, are admins going to take this issue seriously? Because after three months, including a month-long mediation, and a month-long arbitration, the text on these pages is still POV and exaggerated and sometimes not accurate--and being defended against edits. --Cberlet 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Berlet, I am not accusing you, (although it may have seemed that way), of removing the information in the articles that can be linked through those one day accounts. It just seemed spurious that Nobs had hardly been banned for a month when all these related articles that he worked on all go through an erasure of virtually every edit he did. I can't say who is biased, who is wrong or who is right with the evidence. I can offer you the opportunity to do a number of things. Your best bet is a Request for comment. When I stumbled onto the List of Americans in the Venona papers and saw that almost the entire article had been erased [3], so seeing it as vandalism, I reverted that back and returned the page to the earlier state. The other option is to document your findings and once again, draw up an Rfc and if that fails, arbitration. I recognize that you already went through that and obviously feel very exasperated by this new influx of disagreement. But you are editing articles that do have very polarizing viewpoints, and the cases supporting and or denying that these people are spies can be be expected to also have some bias in them either way. Surely you can see this to be true. I did see that you do not just revert and that you do make an effort to adapt or NPOV certain passages that I am sure you have a strong enough disagreement with that your normal human inclination would be to revert, so I applaud that. You may also want to seek out assistance through the Advocates who will possibly be able to help you if you do go through mediation. I would be glad to assist as well, although I am not a mediator, nor interested in becoming one.--MONGO 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated time and time again, until I am blue in the face, that the material you insist on putting in the article, is simply not relevant and in some cases does not accurately reflect the opinion of the source you have cited. On the Magdoff article, you continue to use a reference who has not specifically spoken about the subject at hand. You justify the inclusion of the material on the basis of it “balancing” the article, but that really does not mean anything, if it is not relevant than it is not appropriate to include [4]. In another article you have used the same source, comments from Schrecker from 1998, to argue a different point, when as I have illustrated, the source no longer agrees with her 1998 statements [5]. As far as the allegations of stalking go, remember how many fingers are pointing back at you.

This page originated as a blacklist that falsely implied that the people on the list were Soviet espionage agents. I have only edited a tiny handful of pages with disclaimer material. I have been busy. There are many other pages I have not edited. I will get right on that important task. Thanks for reminding me [6]

Considering that many of the related pages have been recently vandalized by a pack of sockpuppets, I feel that my fears of the content being erased for sinister and underhanded motivations and the need for someone like myself to monitor these articles for such activities is more than justified. Knit Cap; on John Abt and Donald Hiss; Solid State on Jacob Golos, Zerber 252; Zerber 252 on Victor Perlo, Lud Ullman; Rebren20 on Harold Ware and Frank Coe; and PangRoh 894 on Lee Pressman and Maurice Halperin, and lastly, Poor Elijah on Charles Kramer.

One last thing, before I am painted with the guilt by association brush, let us not forget that Nobs was banned for his “conduct”, not his contributions. DTC 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view as an outside observer to several articles he edited regularly, his content was also suspect at times. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the truth.--MONGO 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Nobs was not banned for content, he was banned for conduct. My dispute with Berlet is one of content. DTC 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute in which TDC does not edit, but merely deletes and reverts in defense of the text produced by Nobs01. Please note that I have repeatedly asked TDC to use my user name. Does TDC agree to mediation on these pages?--Cberlet 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this many times before, the information you are attempting to put in every article has nothing to do with the specific topic. And yes, I agree to mediation. DTC 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy handled a previous mediation over these same pages. --Cberlet 15:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is intended to further Wikipedia's overall objective of writing an encyclopedia, not to be forum for generating unsourced speculation that Prof. Harvey Klehr is part of a "Venona Posse" to "justify violations of civil liberties." [7][8] [9] There may be a conflict of interest, given the citations at [10] and the fact that the Wikipedia entry un Chip Berlet states that he was is a former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild and was managing editor of its publication during the time the National Lawyers Guild supported the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. A Request for Mediation should be entered into in good faith, and not be driven by what may appear as a personal agenda to discredit or silence one's professional critics.--MONGO 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly this type of prejudice against my attempts to introduce skeptical material from reputable published sources--not "censor" exisitng material--that prompts my request for mediation. All my attempts to cite scholars and published material is deleted or gutted. I think it would be appropriate to ask Flcelloguy, who handled a previous mediation over these same pages, whether or not I made a serious attempt to take the mediation seriously and tried to act in good faith.--Cberlet 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prejudiced against you or your POV. I am again, also not accusing you of removing information in related article to this one you have requested information on. I am fuly in agreement that there needs to be balance in these articles. I was just drawn to this after discovering huge mass deletions of information, a whitewashing of information, that you have claimed, essentially had no business being there since they were all misinformation from Nobs. I tend to disagree, but I am more than willing to conclude that I may be completely wrong.--MONGO 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. There is certainly a dispute here; it should perhaps be referred to the Arbitration for consideration of the parties' conduct.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schuckardt

OnWiki mediation is needed here, not of the editorial type, but of a policy type; because the article on Francis Schuckardt is more akin to tabloid journalism than a compilation of facts that should be indicative of an encyclopedia.

When I first started editing this article about 3 months ago, it was replete with factual errors and scurrilous accusations, but supported with only two slightly relevant sources. I did a major edit to the article and verified the corrections and additions I made with 60 endnotes along with some on-page references. I proceed in a twofold manner: I only removed/replaced factual inaccuracies with verifiable facts and I left everything else essential intact (despite the fact the much of it was/is unverified) and chose to answer the many accusations rather than to simply delete them. I thought that this would give the reader both sides of the story and enable the reader to make up his/her own mind. I also made some additions which I felt were relevant to the overall article.

The problem lies in the fact that some, but two people in particular - James Reyes and George Wagner - continually remove verifiable statements and facts that do not suit their bias. Time and again I have had to reinsert verifiable facts they removed without explanation, only to find them removed again, without explanation (and in the process they would always inadvertently or intentionally cause the endnotes to be misplaced). I encourage to you read the discussion page to see my efforts to have them deal only with verifiable facts (they even edited the discussion page to remove statements/headings they didn't like).

A good example of this is to look at what they did after I made another edit on January 17th. They just wholesale removed vast portions, even entire sections, of whatever they opposed, without explanation; this is not editing, this is vandalism.

What they will not admit to, but what is obvious from an objective look into their "editing," is that they are hateful of Bishop Schuckardt and want to put forward their theories and biases without opposition or regard for the facts. I object to the idea of an encyclopedia being used for this purpose and I think they are harming the reputation of Wikipedia by such conduct and doing a disservice to the public in general. Let the facts speak for themselves, they can peddle their propaganda elsewhere.

I've just finished yet another reinsertion session of wrongfully removed facts and would suggest to use this as a starting point for any further revisions.

Thank you.

Frater John 1/19/06

Reject: This is not what the Mediation Committee is for; we do not issue judgements. Mediation must be collaborative, and this request fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sagejr

On the Nietzsche page, I added the link "Santayana's Criticism of Nietzsche"(http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Santayana's%20Criticism%20of%20Nietzsche.htm), and someone (I believe "Goethean") keeps deleting it. Santayana was one of the most important philosophers of the last 2 or 3 centuries, and his book "Egotism In German Philosophy" was very influential. I keep putting the link back under "Criticism." Today (1/24) I was accused by "Goethean" of "vandalism" -- rather funny, considering that it is he who has a penchant for deleting links. If anyone from the Mediation team can be of assistance, I would be grateful.

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. Further, we are not judges who issue rulings; this is best taken to the talk page or to RfC.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln

I have been trying to break up the Abraham Lincoln article into smaller and more managable sections. I started out with an article on Lincoln's Early Life and Career. Since I started that the user JimWae has been removing all of my working and continually reverting to previous versions of the work. First time he said to condense the early life and career section, which I started to do when my laptop's battery ran low and I saved the work so that I wouldn't lose it. I also decided to move to a more comfortable location in my home, and I opened up the Abraham Lincoln page to continue what I had started to find that once again every last change I had made had been removed once again by JimWae. Not even the link to the new article about Lincoln's early life was left in. I would like to proceed with this condensation, but get the feeling that no matter what lengths I go to that JimWae is just going to swoop in and erase every change I make and not even let me finish my work. JesseG 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made one revert - 2 other editors made the other reverts. Complainant has not explained anything about what he intends to do other than say he wants to shorten article by creating sub-articles. He then left only a link to a sub-article in the main article. Editor has made zero other edits to article in last 6 months or more. He moved to immediate protection of the article, which somebody else reverted -- he is not even aware that it was someone else. Was he protecting it from himself too? His only response in the talk pages has been to complain that he should be allowed to do whatever it is he is doing before anyone else gets involved. Not having even tried to use the talk pages constructively, this editor is now attempting a waste of the mediation board's time --JimWae 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. Also, doesn't set out specific issues to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati

A section entitled "Scientist?" was introduced originally to attempt a compromise with another editor. With further exposure to Wikipedia, I have recognized that this section not only constitutes original research, but relies on weasel words for its entire backbone. I removed the section and supported all my reasons in talk. One editor who disagreed (I assume) kept reverting, then blocked me inappropriately. Two of his (I can only assume) friends, have now joined, and instead of addressing the issues, they have mounted a revert campaign coupled with (mild) personal attacks (calling me obsessive, accusing me of being other editors {aka sock puppets, even though they are located in a different state}, telling me to stop repeating what others tell me to say, etc.). I am asking for review of the talk pages, as well as article's section (now added back by another editor who also attacks and says he can't see my arguments, rather than trying to resolve the matter). When I contacted one of the editors in question, s/he removed my query with a "troll" comment. I believe that a consensus cannot be made with these three as they are determined to push a POV that is based on weasel words. Please review and mediate. Thank you agapetos_angel 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to support how this section violates wikipedia:verifiability, but it is reverted again to the unsourced, anonymous assertions that are disputed. Second request for someone to mediate for lack of conformity to Wiki policy. 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC seems to be unsuccessful. I have recapped [11] the main dispute (the secondary dispute over the header seems to fall on how this dispute is settled). Thanks agapetos_angel 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. The Mediation Committee does not "review and mediate," we help parties who have agreed to mediate to come to an agreement. Statement rejects the central point of mediation: agreement of the parties.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philwelch

User/admin has repeatedly moved a comment discussing the inappropriate nature of the user comment RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress out of the Response section and into another section against the wishes of the poster, User:DrWitty. The relevent instructions in the Response section state:

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section."

User:Philwelch believes that only "Congress" may post in the Response section per the instructions, and has reverted the submitted comments 3 times. User:Philwelch also unilaterally blocked the IP and account of the submitter for 1 hour for "disruption and incivility" after having been warned that he would be reported for repeatly moving the submission contrary to the Response instructions, in an attempt to prevent the user from raising this dispute with any third party in a timely manner.

DrWitty 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrWitty blocked. I was trying to be helpful (and I think anyone with RfC experience will agree that his concerns are better categorized as an "outside view") when this user started attacking me and edit warring. We don't have to put up with this crap, and Mediation isn't the right place to take this anyway. ANI is, and I've already posted it there myself. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with RFC experience will agree that you cannot RFC an entire branch of government. By its own terms a User Conduct RFC is only appropriate for a single user. That means that a comment that the RFC is unjustified (as against Wikipedia policy) properly belongs on the Response section. Your insistance that only "Congress" can post in that section is clearly contrary to the instructions, and at this point only an issue with you, not others. DrWitty 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: This issue is not a medaition; the MC does not sit as a court to hear disputes and issue judgments. It should be discussed on the talk page of the RfC, and taken to ANI or RFAR if the problems continue.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

84.59.112.101

I'm requesting Mediation on the article 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Please go to the talk page, and scroll all the way down to the bottom. This anonymous user, always starting with the IP 84.59, has been harassing multiple users on this page with personal attacks, violating the 3RR many times reverting any edits, disputing any change to the page as POV, etc. He then takes anyone who disagrees with him, and threatens to bring a RfC for them, which is a violation of WP:POINT. The anon claims factual and historically indisputable information (to wit: that the official name of the 2003 invasion operation was Operation Iraqi Freedom) is propoganda, and reverts any efforts to show otherwise. He singlehandedly brought on the +protection of the page. User:Pookster11 has been trying to clean up that entry, which is several times the recommended size, and has a size warning on the top. Pookster11 used content forking to cut large sections out of the current article and give them their own article, leaving a link to the new one in their page. This is common Wikiquette, and good editing policy. However the anon continually reverts Pookster's efforts, then accuses him of deleting things, and finally tries to lecture EVERYONE on the proper use of Wikipedia, when he isn't even doing it himself. Anyone who disputes with him is the butt of personal attacks on their talk pages: I am no exception. This user has repeatedly attacked me on my talk page. Please come to the talk page, and mediate this guy, so we can do something about him, before I have to submit a RfA. Thanks. Swatjester 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user has a pending request for comment. Swatjester 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: This is an issue for ANI or RfC; given that an RfC is in progress, that should conclude before considering further steps in dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material challenged on the irreducible complexity entry

On the irreducible complexity entry it is claimed that the concept comes from comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy. This material has been challenged and a citation has been requested. A month after the citation request was made, no citation was provided and so I removed the challenged material under WP:CITE. It has triggered a revert war and the subsequent RfC seems to have failed to resolve the matter, since editor FeloniousMonk insists on reinserting the uncited challenged material, claiming that no citation is necessary despite my quoting of Wikipedia policy to the contrary. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A day after the request was made four or five cites were offered on the talk page, with (aborted) discussion about which would be best. One is now in the article. Wade is, as usual, screaming for a cite which has verbatim the content of the WP article. We've explained to him that would be either a copyvio or Gutenberg. He remains tendencious. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wade is a seeker of direct absolute verbatim quotes rather than being able to read between the lines. Jim62sch 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not screaming for "verbatim," a paraphrase will do. But the quotes are not instances of Bertanlaffy describing the concept of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed (which is Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity"). Take for instance this Bertanlaffy quote provided on the talk page:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components

This is not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. Furthermore, the quote does not give a page number to where it can be found and is thus not quite verifiable. My request for mediation still stands. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it twice now. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life, 1952, Pg. 148. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time no page number was given. I am glad you have finally acceded to my request. Nonetheless, the quote I mentioned does not contain the concept of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade, I can understand you saying "I never saw the page number given." But saying it was never given is basically accusing me of dishonesty, which I do not appreciate. See here where the page number was indeed given, by me, at 20:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC). KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "basically accusing" you of "dishonesty"? You did not say that you had the page number at the time I made the claim here. Incidentally, I'm sorry I missed the link you mentioned. But I based my "no page number" claim on the fact that I requested the page number on the current talk section, a request that you declined to answer (See the "Mind giving a page number for that?" question here, though you'll have to use Control-F or something similar to locate that question). Little did I know that you added a page number to the article after I last checked it, without actually responding to my request in the talk section. Nevertheless, I should have checked the main article just to be sure, and for that I apologize.

Still, the quote I mentioned (the one which your citation seems to refer to given your subsequent posts) does not contain the concept of a system ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. So my request for mediation still stands. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: JustinWick has started a new RfC section. (You can find the old RfC section here.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: Let the RfC run it's course. Also, there does not appear to be an issue that requires medition; an argument over page numbers is not sufficient to require mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, given the new RfC, it may be best to let it run its course. However, what do you mean by "an argument over page numbers"? The dispute is whether the citation in question supports the claim. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users considering wikipedia as a tool for Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean nationalism

Several users, e.g. Benne, Sargonious and Assyria 90, are busy renaming Assyrian(s) into Syriac(s) in several articles, even creating an erroneous "Syriacs" box (Template:Syriacs) abusively including Lebanese in this category, deleting the content of the Assyro-Chaldeans article, or trying to put back non-accurate mentions of an Ancient Assyrians ancestry of modern Assyrians into the Assyrian people article. It seems impossible to stop them reverting some articles and adding nonsense into some others. --Pylambert 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with the renaming since I myself is against it to be honest. Since Syriacs are Suryoye and Suryoye is translated into Suryani in Turkish and that can not be used for all Assyrians according to me. Your insulting the whole Assyrian people by calling the Assyrians today having nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians. Its proved that the Assyrians had two kingdoms after their empire falled, those kingdoms were Osroene and Adiabene. There are evidents that the Persians let 400 Assyrian "politicans" executed because they tried to establish a reborned Assyria in those Assyrian kingdoms who were left. I think its really insulting what you are doing, Pylambert.--Yohanun 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in God's name are you talking about Pylambert? I am not in favor of renaming anything Assyrian into Syriac. I did the exact opposite. Syriac means Syriac Language. Assyrian means belonging to the Nation of Assyria. Get your facts straight. Sargonious

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. Further, RfC should be the first step; this is a fairly significant issue, and requires broader community input.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiMUD article and online creation article

Requesting mediation between Eggster 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) and user User:Atari2600tim for the purpose of stopping a perpetuating revwar that User:Atari2600tim is perpetuating. He is also bothering me on the article online creation and refuses to contact the author of the software about this despute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggster (talk • contribs) [reply]

Eggster has reverted NiMUD 4 times today and online creation 3 4 times already. Facts (via Google Groups) supporting the version that I reverted to are on the talk page(s) and within the article itself. Regarding the part where he wants me to contact the author: he wants me to e-mail -him- (he is the author using a fake persona) and ask him when he first released his software. I say that quoting his own Usenet postings from the mid-90's is going to be far more accurate than asking him about it today. We've already asked him, and all the things that he bases his claims on are relative to something else. The usenet posts he wrote have specific dates, while the times he is giving are things like "X happened before around the same time as when I did Y", where Y happened on some other date. His "proof" is that Y happened. In one of my edit summaries I told him to ask Locke about the dates, because this fake persona is allegedly getting his info from Locke, and is not Locke himself. Since Locke posted the usenet articles, he can pretty easily glance at them and say "oh yeah, I wrote those, oops, sorry I gave you wrong info". Regarding the reason that I reverted it today: he's claiming that his software is Public domain, while text from him in the article disagrees (in fact at one part it complains that people are not e-mailing him in order to follow his license). He is in total understanding of why I am in disagreement with the words public domain, as evidenced by the talk page where he wrote "It may not be public domain, but it is public." right after editing the page to say "public domain" again. --Atari2600tim 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of Eggster deleting links to Locke's usenet posts with specific date info and replacing it with relative dating info is shown in this edit. --Atari2600tim 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atari2600tim is a sock puppet of User:Thoric who has been vandalizing NiMUD source code since 1994. Original copies of NiMUD were distributed in late 1993. Every day for the past three months he's been reverting and censoring my attempts to get to the truth, including not talking to the original author like I have been. I'd like both Thoric and Atari2600tim to be banned from editing this article. Eggster 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected things that are obviously wrong, as I am unfamiliar with your software and Thoric's software (Thoric wrote the SMAUG OLC system) and have never used either (thus, I am no expert on you guys' stuff). However, the obvious things that I myself can see have been getting fixed by me. I think someone can look at me and Thoric and see if we're sock puppets of each other or not fairly easily. Eggster however is the person listed in the article and referred to as Locke. He's using a new alter-ego lately named Eggster in hopes of taking advantage of the "don't bite the newbies" policy, but in the past has used multiple accounts with hilarious consequences in votes, so I'd suggest against treating him as a newbie. Here are some things I have fixed on one or both of the articles, but were changed back to being incorrect at least once by Locke/Eggster at some point:

NiMUD being based on Merc, but allegedly was released before Merc 1.0 was.
Thoric found more detailed dates via Google Groups' usenet archives, and
It's the first game world editor to have modes.
NiMUD is getting described as public domain, yet it includes code from Diku and Merc, neither one of which is public domain or ever can be. Details about NiMUD's license were mentioned in the article, complaining that not enough people were e-mailing him, which is a requirement that Locke added on to the Merc and Diku rules. Somehow it still gets described as public domain.
That his online creation system is the "standard" for all Diku derivatives, while there are many many derivatives with his system or other systems, and also Diku does not come with his one packaged with it.
For a while, the existance of all other software with similar name and functionality was deleted from the article.

There's more, but this is not a talk page, so I think that's enough to get the point across and hopefully not make someone waste time trying to deal with this situation when he has no intention of working with mediation. I started an -unofficial- mediation request (in hopes of leaving you guys alone to focus on more important things) via the Mediation Cabal, which is at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24_Online_Creation. Unfortunately the masses of communications between Locke and Thoric seems to have ran off the guy who volunteered (since he hasn't posted to it lately), I believe that this request right here was made in bad faith as some kind of revenge for starting the Mediation Cabal request. --Atari2600tim 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here to seek fairness- the cabal mediator was a sock puppet. Eggster 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Atari2600tim 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: The statement "the cabal mediator was a sock puppet" disturbing on many levels, but most importantly, indicates that good faith effort was not put into the previous mediation. Reject for now, refer to the Arbitration Committee if the parties wish to continue.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seth Mahoney and Nihilism

Seth believes there should not be a link to the net's oldest page on Nihilism. He hasn't given a reason for this except that he disagrees with the viewpoints on the page. I consider this abusive and would like to to know if others agree. He's now deleted the link 8-10 times and has still not given a reason. I'd like to have a clear reason for (a) the deletion and (b) why Seth's unprofessional, destructive and worryingly vengeful behavior is tolerated. Thank you in advance. www.anus.com 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe I have deleted the link more than 10 times, and its continual addition to the page is something I consider barely above spam. It is not thematically related to the page at all (the only similarities being references to Nietzsche and the word 'nihilism'), it has a history of making factually inaccurate claims, and doesn't represent what it claims to represent. I've given all these reasons on Talk:Nihilism (with the exception of calling the link spam), and the only responses have been Prozak's and his friends'/sockpuppets' trolling (a worthwhile place to look regarding this would be the vandalism and flaming initiated by many of the people "arguing" for anus.com's inclusion on Talk:Nihilism, all accessible in their edit histories). Further, Prozak's claims that I am being authoritarian and unprofessional on this matter are a little absurd - I happen to be one of the very few people who contributes to nihilism. The only time I've removed contributions were when they were questionable and uncited or grammatically and stylistically supbar, and several of those I moved to the talk page rather than delete outright, in order to encourage editors to clean them up and re-add them. -Seth Mahoney 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANUS, or the American Nihilist Underground Society, has published several articles on Nihilism. One, "How a Nihilist Lives," was reprinted in print zine "Air in the Paragraph Line," issue 10. We have been online since 1995 and were extensively represented on bulletin boards for seven years before that. Here are some articles: Nihilism, Philosophy of Nihilism, Nihilism as Holy Grail, Nihilism and How Does a Nihilist Live?. Seth's hiding behind "not thematically related" as a way of disguising what he admits to be a dislike for the page, which he will say is "sub-par" instead of offering meaningful arguments for why it should not be included, while including many other pages of dubious relevance. Seth clearly has some personal agenda here, and it's damaging the quality of WikiPedia's information on this topic. Further, as can be noted through the history, I've contributed to the Nihilism article including the tedious task of grammatical cleanup. Seth, you've clearly got a personal and not professional issue here. www.anus.com 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth, I don't believe you've said why counterorder is allowed to be linked to but not ANUS. In fact, why does counter order link to ANUS if ANUS doesn't qualify in your little drama? Counter order, in your mind, clearly qualifies, but if they too feel ANUS is worth linking to then perhaps it isn't ANUS or counterorder that is at fault. --Iconoclast 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Extended pending confirmation that all parties accept mediation. Also, the parties need to define the issues to be mediated. If all the parties do not sign on for mediation within 14 days, the mediation will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely accept mediation. Here are my issues:

www.anus.com does not relate to the topic of nihilism. It is a site professing a superficially enlightened racist/culturalist/imperialist/eugenicist fascism, and this is a topic not covered in the article. It (last time I looked) also contains historical errors and philosophical claims that are just not accurate. When I brought this up on Talk:Nihilism it was ignored, and the issue was skirted by insisting that my real reasons for deleting the link were because I was too scared to deal with their philosophy, or some nonsense.

Anus.com advocates many things, including ecoterrorism and gay communitarianism. You have honed in one one (1) aspect of what is discussed on the site and used it as the basis for a taboo. Not only is that illogical, but it's immature. That's why we're here for mediation: your bad behavior. You failed to point out factual errors, historical errors and philosophical claims that are not accurate. Your ultimate reason for not linking anus.com: you think it is "sub-par." You'll have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously. You're lying once again, and promoting your own agenda, which has nothing to do with truth. I don't like that kind of bad behavior. It reeks of control freaks.www.anus.com 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, it seems there is some Wikipedia consensus that anus.com is not especially notable: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anus.com and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society

As far as counterorder.com, I haven't even checked the site. If it expresses the same "philosophy" as anus.com, its link should also be removed.
As far as Prozak's behavior, it has been inflammatory from the beginning, as has that of his lackeys/friends Iconoclast and the anon users that have contributed to Talk:Nihilism. Their contributions include, and are mostly limited to, vandalism and trolling, and this is just one more example of that behavior.

-Seth Mahoney 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now debating with you is trolling? My, you're a nasty little coward.--Iconoclast 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be precisely the sort of comment I was referring to above, along with, for example, [12], [13], and [14]. -Seth Mahoney 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen-- let us cut the childish antics and stop complaining every time somebody cracks a joke at your expense or doesn't play nicely with you. You moralize anus for your own homosexual marxist feminist beliefs; how strange that something as nihilistic as eugenics is not considered nihilistic because Seth Mahoney, Moralist Marxist, does not like such. Stop thinking you're god and realize that YOU ARE NOT THE PINNACLE OF TRUTH. In fact, the very example of you complaining about my trolling HERE where it is not the place to do is is not to actually to DO something about my so-called trolling, but get petty revenge at me and mr. www.anus.com and attempt to discredit the ANUS. Actually, you haven't said why ANUS doesn't belong, all you've done is used buzz words like inflammatory (I wonder why THAT word comes to mind) and "trolling" instead of confronting the issues.

www.anus.com linked to an essay regarding ANUS's brand of nihilism, why haven't you read it? --Iconoclast 04:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Given the above commentary, I see no reason to belive the parties have a desire to engage in civil discussions or come to a compromise. Mediation requires that all parties involved cooperate to reach an agreement, and I don't see a demonstration that such cooperation is imminent. Where mediation is likely to fail, it is better that it be rejected outright. I strongly encourage the parties to consider an RfC if they have not done so already; this dispute seems headed to RfAr if the current trend continues.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So information about reality is subject to "compromise"? --Iconoclast 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the parties are not willing to even engage in civil discussion, there can be no mediation. I'm sorry if you misunderstood the nature of what we do here: We do not hear evidence and issue rulings. We assist parties in coming together to agree on a compromise. I see no reason to belive either side has any interest in compromising. It is not the place of the Mediation Committee to determine who is right and who is wrong, or to decide which version of a page is the correct one, or to decide what information is correct and what is not. That is simply not what we do here. The more I look at it, the more I believe it is an issue for the Arbitration Committee. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was no hope of compromise the instant that Seth Mahoney decided to class a website as "sub-par" based on his personal bias. I would argue that he is abusing his position in the WikiCommunity (?) and is therefore being unreasonable. I would like to see a statement from WikiPedia against such behavior, as it is the antithesis of notable, balanced, fair, informative, etc. www.anus.com 04:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, request all you want, but you'll have to do it somewhere other than here. The Mediation Committee is not the place for this; take it to RfC or to Arbitration, but this is not the place. There is no agreement to mediate, we can not involve ourselves. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Redlink Reduction

I want my pages to get deleted

Involved parties

Swatjester (talk · contribs)
Jerzy (talk · contribs)
get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

Talk:User talk talk:Get-back-world-respect [15]

User talk pages:

Swatjester [16]
Jerzy [17]
get-back-world-respect cannot be informed as my talk page is protected

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_want_my_page_deleted

Issues to be mediated

I want to get my pages deleted and to withdraw from the project. I have the right for that as can be seen here. However, some users recycled my talk page after it had already been deleted and even started a talk page in the main space to discuss about me. The admin who did that removed my complaint from his talk page without replying. There is an extra page for opposition to deletions, no need to deface my page. I had deleted Swatjester's comments there after my pages had been deleted and they had thus become obsolete. However, he follows me wherever I go and throws mud at me. Even after being told several times that I am allowed to delete content from my talk page, as many users frequently do, he insists it is vandalism. My statements that I retreat from the project and do not want to receive further messages on my talk page were deleted and the page protected. Even when withdrawing people are getting kicked at here. The only wrongdoing I had here in several years was a 3RR for which I was blocked for 24 hrs. Now I am being treated like a criminal. 84.59.79.243 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Agreed. Get-back-world-respect 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The user is making a WP:POINT, and is trying to cover blatant vandalism. Please see the deletion discussion page on GBWR's talk page. Note: user's comment about "extra page" is funny because user deleted any attempts to disagree on that page, blantant vandalism.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: First, parties do not agree to mediate. Second, this is not within the perview of the Mediation Committee. Refer to Arbitration.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide

Dispute regarding the relevance of the article. Factual accuracy and neutrality tag is placed on the article while no specific concerns abut the content were presented. Research was presented stating the relevance of the article and common use of the term in media and academia. Dispute between User:Dado User:Zvonko and User:Asim Led. For more see talk.--Dado 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No specific concerns abut the content include talk page that is 87 kilobytes long. Common use of term which is presented is not the same as its use in the article. Nikola 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to indicate the willingness of all parties to mediate, by having them indicate that on this page. It would be helpful for you to put this in the new {{RFMR}} format, but since it was requested before that was implemented, I will not require it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Fails to indicate agreeement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dianetics (Link rather than transclude; page is over 85KB)

External link regarding the age of the Earth

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

No formal dispute resolution attempted

Issues to be mediated

Whether or not the content at [30] should be included on the wiki, or linked to from it

Here's the sequence of events as I reconstructed it. I'm guessing that User:Ati3414 and anonymous IP 67.170.224.36 (contribs) are the same person. It would be nice if we could test this hypothesis, but it seems very likely, so I'm going to treat these two users as a single person in this outline.

Ati3414 wrote a derivation of the Earth's age using isotope ratios, and added it to age of the Earth as a section on 23 Jan. It stood peacefully until 31 Jan.
User:Rickert objected to the section's scientific accuracy, and User:Vsmith moved it to talk:. A heated discussion ensued. See this section. I haven't read all of it (it's pretty long and painful), but it appears that several people favored the section's removal, against Ati3414 alone.
Ati3414 forked the section to How old is the Earth? (hist) and How to calculate Earth's Age (AfD discussion; history lost). The former underwent two reversion cycles; both now redirect to Age of the Earth.
Ati3414 put the section back in, as the discussion continued. A reversion war began, but the discussion ended shortly thereafter.
After a couple of reversions, Ati3414 turned his derivation into a PDF document, got it hosted on a web server, and started putting it in as an external link. The reversion war continued for five more cycles, but on 4 Feb it stopped, with Ati3414's opponents getting the last word. A few more days went by peacefully.
On 8 Feb, Ati3414 put external links to his PDF in Uranium-uranium dating, Radioactive decay, and Half-life. Each of these articles has been reverted at least four times since then.
At various points during this process, angry remarks were left on people's talk pages (see "Involved parties" above). I haven't bothered to sort this out.

Additional issues to be mediated

2. Correction: there were a few members in favor of merging it in the Age of the Earth. See the lost history of How to calculate Earth's Age Ati3414 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Correction: each of the quoted articles underwent 3 reversions . Ati3414 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Agree. Smack (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Vsmith 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ati3414 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-14 22:02Z
Agree Rolinator
Agree Ter e nc e Ong 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ec5618 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Rickert 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find out whether the anon and Ati3414 are really two different people? --Smack (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can request for checkuser. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to. How do we do that? --Smack (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page to request for this function. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Per Asbestos. Where it is a single editor opposed to a number of others, the solution is to determine consensus (or policy) and follow it. If the relevant policy is the one cited below, and the only question is whether the paper has been published in peer-reviewed form, then a consensus needs to be determined (or, if this is truly a case of one opposed to all, already has been determined) and enforced. One editor opposing consensus is not cause for mediation, it is cause for administrator intervention, or in the extreme RfC or Arbitration.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (FMOC) Waiting on: 67.170.224.36 (talk), Rickert (talk), Terenceong1992 (talk), Ec5618 (talk). Also, appears to have been filed @ 08:01, February 12, 2006 [31]; but that was under the 14 day accept deadline, so has until the 26th. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is one person against a number of others, and that everyone has said everything that they could say on the subject. If this is the case, what would you like achieved in mediation? If this is a binary decision, and neither side is going to change their mind, I'm not sure that a mediation would be sucessful. As an aside, and not in the role as a mediator, I think the relevant guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Science_and_medicine, and the applicable question is whether or not the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed forum. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borda fixed point

Involved parties

Rspeer (talk · contribs)
Colignatus (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

Talk:Borda fixed point - RFMF posted on talk page

User talk pages:

User talk:Colignatus - RFM-Request posted on Colignatus' user talk page

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

None so far.

Issues to be mediated

Should User:Colignatus write about his own research, such as Borda fixed point on Wikipedia?

Additional issues to be mediated

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Agree. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Colignatus 02:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox categorization

Involved parties

Guanaco (talk · contribs)
MarkSweep (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

User talk pages:

MarkSweep [32]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

What userboxes, if any, should contain categories such as Category:Christian Wikipedians?
Should these categories be speedily deleted if they are removed from the userboxes and thereby orphaned?

Additional issues to be mediated

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Agree. —Guan aco 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: I had hopes perhaps this could be handled in mediation before the RfAr got to far. Unfortunately, the case has now received enough votes to be accepted, and a number of parties have joined in the case. We must, unfortunately, reject, for the following reasons:
Superceded by the Arbitration Committee.
Parties have not agreed.
New parties have entered the dispute but are not included in the request.

For the Mediation Committee,Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]