- Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Please read the information in the "What is mediation?", before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at Wikipedia:Mediation.
For more information
You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation (what is mediation)
Requests for mediation
It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask.
It's important that this page should not become a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.
Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full.
See #Archives for past requests.
Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment
I am asking for mediation on this user, I feel that his sole purpose is to insert POV material into articles, and he has started an edit war over Supply-side economics. Stirling Newberry 12:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have left a message for Terjepetersen on his talk page to see if he is willing to accept mediation. BCorr|Брайен 15:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- TERJE (2004-07-26):Is this process still active. Unfortuantely I completely missed the entire process because my own talk page was not on my watch list. That is now rectified. Is mediation process opened or closed or what?
- There hasn't been any mediation since both people have to agree. Since you are willing to participate, please reply and say if you have any preferences as to the mediator. There is a list of committee members at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am happy for Bcorr to mediate. Regards, Terje. 10:45, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Stirling Newberry has also agreed on my talk page. I have been away, but now that I'm back I will post a proposal for moving forward on this matter within a day. many thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Next steps for User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen
Thank you both for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict. I propose that I create a topic (thread) on the mediation message board, and if there is no objection, I will get things going tomorrow. You can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have created the topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board here. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Drbalaji has engaged in repeated personal attacks and false allegations (regarding my usage of sysop powers) on me, including on Talk:Main page. He has also labeled the "majority of admins" as morons. User:chocolateboy may be involved, as he too was the subject of name-calling ("self-styled king") and false allegations of misusing his sysop power (when he isn't even one). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drbalaji md, User talk:Drbalaji md and Talk:Coca-Cola. I would like mediation so we can sort this out without him resorting to his ridiculous debate tactics (as was evidenced by his argument with User:Raul654). He has not agreed to mediation, as I haven't asked him. If I know him, he'll refuse, based on grounds that he is fighting "dictatorship and bureaucracy". Hopefully somebody can help us resolve this, as I'm tired of being slandered by Drbalaji wherever he goes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Message left at User talk:Drbalaji md asking if Drbalaji md is willing to participate in mediation. Angela. 11:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:K1 and user:refdoc
K1 has refused mediation. Moved to Archive 8.
User:RK and User:DanKeshet (and/or User:Zero0000 )
As described on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, there has been an on-again, off-again conflict in editing at Israel Shahak, talk:Israel Shahak, Edward Said, and talk:Edward Said, all regarding content regarding Israel Shahak. Not only is the actual content of the article at an impasse (Israel Shahak has been protected for a few days now), but the discussion on the talk page does not appear to be productive. The three people who have been most engaged in this conflict are User:RK, User:DanKeshet (myself), and User:Zero0000. Zero and I have stated that RK is not being intellectually honest, while RK has stated that Zero and I are being anti-Semitic. I have asked RK if he would join me in seeking mediation regarding this dispute, and have asked Zero whether he wishes to participate. DanKeshet 08:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am willing (with some hesitation). --Zero 10:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am willing. RK 15:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Do any of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There is a list of committee members at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. (I am not currently available myself). -- sannse (talk) 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I believe Ed disqualified himself by passing judgment on the issue on the mailing list. Other than that, I'm open. DanKeshet 22:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Dan. --Zero 15:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Some of the members of the mediation committee have recused ourselves from participating in this issue. Would all of you agree to having Cimon avaro act as mediator on a trial basis? If so, please sign beside your name.
- Dan Keshet DanKeshet 06:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Zero --Zero 02:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- RK RK 19:29, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- How does this affect Cimon's acting as a moderator in our earlier dispute; as far as I can tell that still hasn't started. Jayjg 00:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Cimon checked in after his messages, but he doesnt seem to have responded yet, though he may just be doing it by email. I have emailed him, and asked him to comment here. -SV
- We will find someone else to mediate between you and Simonides. Danny 02:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I have just withdrawn my Request for Mediation, so Cimon can proceed with mediation here. -- Simonides 03:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cimon has disappeared so we have asked Neutrality and Moink to mediate instead. Neutrality has agreed. Please let us know if this is acceptable to you. Danny 02:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ok with me. --Zero 03:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm willing to help as much as I can. moink 19:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute with User:Zestauferov about the classification of Nazarene Judaism. At User:Zestauferov's request, User:Ed Poor has locked the page in the form User:Zestauferov prefers. Would it be possible to get mediation on this? Thanks. Jayjg 21:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I've left a message at User talk:Zestauferov. Do you have any preference for a mediator? Angela. 19:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- No, I have none. Ed Poor has involved himself in the dispute at Zestauferov's request, and completely re-written the contentious article, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Jayjg 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I often agree with Ed's hand's on approach; it saves time, and hes very good at listening (er, um, "reading"). I'd like to see his proactive approach be the example for a more approach formalized (see here for a mis-classified proposal). At this point, both of you need to comment on the changes made so far. -SV 00:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I think they're a good start, and much better than what was there before. Jayjg 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Good. Please alert Zest with a summary of developments to date, and convey our request that he comment on them here. -SV
- On the 31st Zest created an alternative version of the page in dispute under a very similar name, and put the version of the text he likes in there. Other than that action, he seems to have vanished. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Not vanished, just a very busy man. The problem is that Jayig does not understand the orthodox Jewish system. The information in the article was all accepted by him except for one phrase. He objected to having the Netzarim classified as a subset of orthodox Judaism as they are and prefered to call them Messianic Jews which they are not. There is not a single orthodox Judaic authority which denounces the Netzarim as non-Judaic. I have asked him to name one and he has not. I did a lot of researchon the question and the facts which were presented were accurate. The challenge came from Jayig and the burden is thus sqarely on his shoulders to proove that the orthodox Jewish community denounce the Netzarim as Non-Jews (he claims they are non-jews rather than apostates, but I would even accept a denunciation of the netzarim as apostates as enough basis to re-phrase. However it should not be rephrased as Messianic-Jews because they simply are not.)Zestauferov 04:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Zest. I don't think this is the page for you to make your case, but rather to state whether or not you will accept mediation. Will you do so? Jayjg 05:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Oops sorry, :-P sure :-)Zestauferov 13:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Zest. I don't think this is the page for you to make your case, but rather to state whether or not you will accept mediation. Will you do so? Jayjg 05:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Not vanished, just a very busy man. The problem is that Jayig does not understand the orthodox Jewish system. The information in the article was all accepted by him except for one phrase. He objected to having the Netzarim classified as a subset of orthodox Judaism as they are and prefered to call them Messianic Jews which they are not. There is not a single orthodox Judaic authority which denounces the Netzarim as non-Judaic. I have asked him to name one and he has not. I did a lot of researchon the question and the facts which were presented were accurate. The challenge came from Jayig and the burden is thus sqarely on his shoulders to proove that the orthodox Jewish community denounce the Netzarim as Non-Jews (he claims they are non-jews rather than apostates, but I would even accept a denunciation of the netzarim as apostates as enough basis to re-phrase. However it should not be rephrased as Messianic-Jews because they simply are not.)Zestauferov 04:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- On the 31st Zest created an alternative version of the page in dispute under a very similar name, and put the version of the text he likes in there. Other than that action, he seems to have vanished. Jayjg 03:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good. Please alert Zest with a summary of developments to date, and convey our request that he comment on them here. -SV
- Well, I think they're a good start, and much better than what was there before. Jayjg 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I often agree with Ed's hand's on approach; it saves time, and hes very good at listening (er, um, "reading"). I'd like to see his proactive approach be the example for a more approach formalized (see here for a mis-classified proposal). At this point, both of you need to comment on the changes made so far. -SV 00:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No, I have none. Ed Poor has involved himself in the dispute at Zestauferov's request, and completely re-written the contentious article, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Jayjg 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In addition to littering the Talk: page with ad hominem statements directed at me, Talk:Nazarene_Judaism#What_is_ad_hominem.3F Zestauferov has now started editing my Talk: page comments [1] ; I'm not sure mediation is a serious enough remedy any more. Jayjg 16:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was simply giving you a reason for the baseless comment you made, and I was also not myself last night. With regards to intersecting comments on a talk page, I find it to be a very effective way of addressing the specific points without them interrupting the flow of other points which are more effective. I did look through the Wikiuette pages you recomended but could not find anything about the topic. Remember though every time we post anything on wiki. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I do not think I have violated any specific point of wikiquette by doing this, and it would make discussions very difficult indeed if we do not do this (the would just ramble on as "cohesive wholes" in a very booring manner ad nauseum.) andyway, I am still open for anyone who wants to mediate between us. Zestauferov 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have worked for quite some time on the Race article. After lengthy discussion between parties who advocated conflicting views (race is a scientifically valid term for a biologically real thing; versus race has no biological reality and the term is rejected by mainstream science) I think a pretty good NPOV compromise was achieved. Recently, someone posted a series of photographs to illustrate races (with a caption like, "People of different races"). This clearly takes one of the points of view of the article (without any explantion). It in no way reflects the compromises worked out over quite some time by various participants.
Although I initially advocated deleting the photographs altogether, Rikurzhen modified the caption so that it would better reflect the article as a whole. I made some further changes to the caption, which others have supported.
Since that time (around August 1) a user who was new to the page reverted the caption, replacing the work Rikurshen and I did with the earlier, misleading (if not plain inaccurate) caption "people of different races." SInce that time I, POM, and others have restored the lengthier caption. Darrien has reverted nine times since then.
- Wrong. I reverted four times before I started using a different caption in an attempt to come to an agreement. -Darrien
At an earlier stage in the discussion someone suggested a straw-poll, but nothing came of that (instead, participants negotiated over a variety of issues, leading to two sets of photos being included). At another stage someone invited other wikipedians to join in; one did, but it did not lead to any productive discussion. May sense is that Rikurzhen, POM, Tannin, and myself agree that the extended caption is required. Darrien keeps reverting.
- It's not an extended caption. It's useless commentary that does nothing but distract the reader. A caption should only describe a picture. -Darrien
I have asked, several times, that Darrien join the discussion on the talk page -- expand on his (or her) reasons and respond to ours. S/he has never (as far as I can tell) participated in the talk page. I left a message on Darrien's own page asking him/her to stop reverting or to seek mediation. Darrien responded not by a commnent on my talk page or the article's talk page, but simply by reverting the caption once more.
- My appologies, I assumed you were just a troll trying to raise a ruckus. I never thought someone could actually think that the caption you kept reverting to was beneficial to the article. -Darrien
I am tempted to block this user or freeze the page, but I have been involved in this from the beginning and can't abuse my sysop abilities. But this constant reversion has to stop -- and Darrien has to learn to communicate and compromise with others. Slrubenstein 16:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
§ I concur with what Slrubenstein has said above. Darrien has been around long enough to predict the result of reverting an article repeatedly with no justification given on the talk page even after being requested to do so. The question is why he would do something guaranteed to get the page protected. -P0M
- It needed no more justification than what was given in the edit summary.
§ The issue is a substantial one, perhaps best illustrated by the caption and the following text at 11:01 on 3 August: -P0M
- People from various races. (Caption.)
- ...use [of the term "race"] is often controversial, largely because.... but also because of disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races. -Darrien
§ Pictures are very powerful in their psychological effect. The picture + caption says, "These are people of different race." That undermines the reasoned contention that there are strong "disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races," and it introduces a logical contradiction. -P0M
- User User:Jalnet2 attemped to achieve a neutral caption by describing the picture with the caption "Various world leaders". This was reverted by Slrubenstein to which I reverted back. It was subsequently reverted again. When I realised that people were having issues with the implication of human races, I also changed it to "Pictures of people considered to be from different races" and "Various people representing the diversity of the human race". Though in retrospect I suppose that "human species" may have been more appropriate. -Darrien
§ It is difficult to get clear on these issues, and until one is clear on the ramifications of the article contents it would be very unlikely that one could provide an appropriate illustration. For Darrien to interfere in an ongoing process of debate and negotiation over the illustration issue without any attempt to address the issues has been very unhelpful. P0M 18:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've left a message at User talk:Darrien asking if he is interested in participating in mediation. moink 19:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Very well. All I want is an image caption. Not a long, semi-coherent spew of text. It also seem from this [2] edit, Slrubenstein and I want the same thing. Why we are going through the mediation process is beyond me. - Darrien?
- Not particularly. Though if I was forced to choose, any of the following (in no order of preference) would be acceptable:
- Ambi
- Angela
- Bcorr
- Cimon Avaro
- Danny
- Ed Poor
- Neutrality
- Not particularly. Though if I was forced to choose, any of the following (in no order of preference) would be acceptable:
- Darrien 20:40, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
- Any of the above are fine with me. Darrien wonders why I asked for mediation? Well, because (1) he never responded to or engaged any discussion on the talk page, and (2) he did not respond to my comment on his talk page. By the way, the fact that he would dismiss an editor's view simply because he can't believe anyone would have that view does not bode well for congeniality or collaboration with a larger community. Slrubenstein
- Please concentrate on the issues at hand. Poisoning the well does nothing but make you look childish. -Darrien 17:33, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
Resolved. Let's wait a couple of days and then archive this one. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Archived and ongoing cases
- User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23
- Archived as Herschelkrustofsky no longer accepting mediation, and the case is already at arbitration.
- User:AndyL and User:WHEELER
- Archived as AndyL is away until September 15.
- User:Simonides and User:Jayjg, User:RK, User:Humus sapiens + others. **Simonides has retracted his request for mediation. See Archive 8 for details.
- Lance6Wins and Zero0000
- See Archive 9 for details.
- User:bcrowell and User:eclecticology
- Matter resolved. Moved discussion to subpage /Bcrowell and Eclecticology - SV
- User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel
- Archived to to allow for the request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404 to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See Archive 9 for details. -- BCorr|Брайен 16:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- User:Rex071404 and User:Neutrality
- Mediation declined, see Archive 9 for details.
See also
- Wikipedia talk:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal) for info
- the mediation bulletin board for discussions about mediation on Wikipedia
- Wikipedia mediation IRC channel
- Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates
Archives
/Archive 0
/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9