Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

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

User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen

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)

User:Johnleemk and User:Drbalaji md

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)

User:Zestauferov and User:Jayjg

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)

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)

VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas

Request mediation with VeryVerily regarding his reversion practice on various articles including George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger. Gzornenplatz 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Second the request. Kevin Baas | talk 18:28, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give it a try. However, I strongly doubt Gz's motives. I believe he is not interested in mediation and is making this request solely to "technically" satisfy the requirement of trying mediation before initiating an arbitration request. This is analogous to his previous action of leaving me a note on my Talk page to satisfy the requirement that two people must contact a user before starting an RfC (see [2]). I offer in support of this theory his statements on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration that he believes mediation would be fruitless [3] [4]. It seems unlikely mediation can succeed when one party does not especially wish it to. V V 03:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I openly admit that I consider mediation futile, because you have previously demonstrated your complete obstinacy on this question whenever I talked to you about it (and I don't see what the interpolation of a mediator should change about it). But if you want to change your immovable stance now, great. If you don't think I wish this to succeed, what do you think I wish? I wish this question resolved, by one method or the other. If mediation does it, fine. If not, arbitration is needed. Gzornenplatz 10:14, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Once again, there's the curious claim that I am the obstinate one, but I see other obstinate people here. But the point is that mediation has little hope if one party has a vested interest in it failing, and your prediction of "futility" will be self-fulfilling. V V 19:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I have no "vested interest" in it failing, I'm just afraid it is doomed to fail because of your previously stated determination to continue reverting, which I therefore believe only an arbitration decision can end. Gzornenplatz 19:46, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

So the sooner arbitration starts, the better? So the sooner this mediation business is over and declared a failure, the better? Is that how you see it? If so, it seems you have an interest in it failing. (Recall that mediation might require that you give a little, which you have been wholly unwilling to do.) V V 19:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sooner you stop reverting, the better. That's how I see it. I don't see what I can possibly give here, this is solely about your behaviour. I am already showing considerable restraint in reverting. Would you prefer I behave like you and reflexively revert, ensuring permanent page protection? Gzornenplatz 20:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting mediation is unlikely to work, because your heart won't be in it. V V 20:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I don't think yours will be. That's why I tried arbitration right away. But it's your choice now. Do you want to try mediation anyway, or shall we let it go to arbitration? Gzornenplatz 20:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why wouldn't my heart be in it? Do you think I want to burden the ArbCom with this frivolous scrap? V V 20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since you say you have no problem with the wording I propose, why don't you give it a rest? I know you think you're defending a "principle" - that if a passage is preferred by editors 5-3, then it becomes forever unalterable until a further vote goes another way. That is at the very least un-wiki-like, and if you read Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, you'll see polls are non-binding, only for limited purposes, and "supposed" to be implemented much unlike they were in this case. V V 20:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not particularly about polls (though I may remind you that in one case the vote was 20-3 against you). It's about trying to force your way by reverting, which is what is un-wiki-like here. And if you read Wikipedia:Three revert rule, you'll see that it's simply against policy. Gzornenplatz 20:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I have said a thousand times, that poll was on an unrelated issue (how much detail to have in the popularity section). As for forcing my way by reverting, that is what the other side is doing, and so I must too to keep up. Other methods have proven ineffective every time I have tried them, including enforcing the 3RR. V V 20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ineffective for what? Any attempt of yours to install a specific version against the prevailing talk page opinion is supposed to be ineffective. The 3RR applies to everyone else too. If everyone adheres to it, and you can't get your way because you're outnumbered by people favouring a different version, then all you can do is try and convince more people of your position on the talk page. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, Gzornenplatz favors this version:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

And VeryVerily favors this version:

The Florida vote, which favored Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, was heavily contested due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process, and became the subject of a series of contentious court cases. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December favoring Bush, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by many, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

Would this version be acceptable to both of you?

The Florida vote was heavily disputed. While initially favoring Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, a manual recount was begun in several counties due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing; after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped, Gore conceded the election. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]14:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~This is incorrect. The version I favor is the one you state above that Gz favors.~~ V V 03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Fixed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, both VV and Rex prefer the version purported to be favored by VV. The version purported to be favored by Gz is favored by Neutrality, Gz, Iainscott, StellarFury, and Lyellin. (See Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11#Disputed_election_results_paragraph_-_building_consensus_2 for evidence.)

This is not at all about what version of the article I prefer (I agree in part with VeryVerily's), it is strictly about his behaviour. No matter how right his version may be, he can't just keep reverting (and without even an edit summary!) to force his way when most people favour different versions, as the polls have shown. This will just lead to constant page protections. Gzornenplatz 15:29, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Nobody can stop VV from reverting except himself, ArbCom, and Jimbo. That's not what mediation is for. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Yes, except that when I requested arbitration, they rejected it, saying mediation has not been tried first! I know mediation is futile here, I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole. Gzornenplatz 16:12, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    - I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here, rather than dismissed. Let's wait for VV to respond, and see if he would like to go through mediation. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Now you're contradicting yourself. You just said this is not what mediation is for. Gzornenplatz 16:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

To date, I have seldom agreed with Neutrality, but on this point he is correct - when he states: "I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here...". Gzornenplatz's comment of "I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole" is totally out of line an anathema to collegial editing. Rex071404 03:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the end, it's your call. If you both still wish to proceed with mediation, do either of you have any preferences for a mediator? Ambi 06:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of mediators who should be recused, as they have already been involved, attempting to negotiate/mediate informally. Beyond that, I currently don't have criteria. I'll list them when i have more time. Beyond this, i'd be happy with whatever gz and vv are happy with. Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Take your pick:

Angela
Anthere
Bcorr
Cimon Avaro
Dante Alighieri
Ed Poor
llywrch
moink
sannse
Stevertigo
TUF-KAT

Hmmmm, I haven't seen cimon, dante, llywch, or moink. How 'bout one of those, with preference in alphabetical order? Kevin Baas | talk 00:52, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I have no preference. Gzornenplatz 11:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Bcorr, nothing personal - I want someone completely new to the dispute to mediate, to get a fresh perspective. Thanks for offering. If I had to pick a specific mediator, I'd go with Cimon, because he's first in alphabetical order. (btw, you failed to mention, Gzornenplatz initiated this RfM) Kevin Baas | talk 14:29, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

______________________________________________

BCorr is willing to mediate

I am willing to mediate this dispute if I am an acceptable choice. Kevin and VeryVerily, please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. I don't have a problem with you as a choice, or indeed with most of the other ones named. My misgiving remains that Gz has no interest in mediation, wishing only to pretend to do it to induce arbitration, and so he will not actually try to make it work. V V 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Bcorr, nothing personal: I want someone completely new to the dispute to mediate, to get a fresh perspective. Thanks for offering. If I had to pick a specific mediator, I'd go with Cimon, because he's first in alphabetical order. (btw, you failed to mention Gzornenplatz, who initiated this RfM.) Kevin Baas | talk 14:29, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I said I have no preference, I'm OK with Bcorr or anyone else. Let's just get on with it. Gzornenplatz 14:33, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt (and others) and CVA

CVA is refusing to discuss over partisan page (whether Polish partisan forces were major ot not), deleting questions from his talk page, vandalises other users page and simply reverting an article without giving reason. Therefore I feel that we need a mediator who would convince him to start discussing before forcing his POV. Szopen 10:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that CVA is constantly ignoring the talk pages and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CVA page (he's been informed of several times), I see no way of forcing him to cooperate. CVA ~~now gave up his revert wars over the Partisan and Home Army articles as well as~~ did not vandalize my user page any more. If any of the mods could encourage him to reply to my questions that would be fine. ~~However, I do not want CVA to be banned since, apart from his engagement in revert wars and racist remarks, he is also engaged in valuable edits to other wikipedia articles.~~ What can be done? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 11:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

No, he didn;t gave up. Last time he reverted Partisan page TWICE in August 28th.

User:CVA has apparently declined to take part in the mediation process ([5]) and decided that our information of this mediation is equal to vandalising his talk page (whatever that means). IMO it is a step too far, I withdraw from my earlier objections and request a mediation. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 20:09, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean - if CVA has refused mediation, then I don't see how mediation is possible. Did you mean Arbitration? Ambi 00:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I (and i guess Halibutt too) believe that Arbitration is final step. We don't want to punish CVA, whatever that means, but we would want him to talk; I believe that he may refused mediation because it was proposed by us (I am Polish and he clearly resent Poles). I hope that if someone else would try to talk him, he could change. He did a lot of valuable work at wikipedia and it may be that this is some temporal insanity or that he is to stubborn to admit that he is in error. However, since he answered that he won't be involved in more revert war (last time 28th August) then it may seem that mediation wouldn't be needed.

However i note that he still is refusing to admit that he was in error and despite being pointed to the sources and various daya he defers them all just because they are Polish. Szopen 07:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I asked Bcorr to start a mediation and he did contact CVA. The latter replied quite extensively here. CVA declared that We have no time or great interest in resurrecting old matters and ask you please advise Halibutt and his confederates to ignore us as we have nothing further to discuss. We will of course reciprocate. Hopefully a simple solution. which could be understood that he won't engage in further revert wars at the Partisan page. This also means that he won't take part in mediation and the RfC process, but that's fine with me as long as he (they?) stays civilized. I still demand apologies for his racist remarks, but that's another thing and perhaps we could settle that after Bcorr returns from his vacations in Vermont. I hope no mediation committee will be needed and that CVA would understand that he was wrong.

I suggest we left this mediation request here until the matter is resolved. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 19:01, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner and User:orthogonal

The bulk of my issue with orthogonal is well summed up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/orthogonal. But, as that procedure has a number of rules and procedures, it's proving to be a format that is not well-suited to resolving a dispute that is largely based around a differing opinion of how rules should be treated. I think mediation might provide that. Snowspinner 16:27, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

If you both accept, do either of you have any preferences as to a mediator? Ambi 01:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was going to ask for you, actually, but orthogonal has suggested he will not accept on a couple of pages, I fear. :( Snowspinner 01:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think I was on decent terms with both of you, but considering my involvement so far, it'd be improper for me to mediate. Take your pick from the list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, and I'll see if they're available. Ambi 04:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My next choice would be Angela. Snowspinner 03:36, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Angela has recused herself on my talk page. Please choose another mediator (oe mediators) that you feel would be acceptable. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco and Cantus

I would like to request mediation with Cantus on the dispute detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco. I am hoping that we can try to resolve this peacefully without resorting to arbitration at this point. Guan aco 06:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What dispute? There is no dispute. There is only stuff that you did that was wrong under Wikipedia policy, and that you deserve punishment for that. Calling this a dispute when there is ample irrefutable evidence to the contrary shows a lack of judgment and, IMHO, a lack of respect for Wikipedia policies. And given the fact that you are actually an admin, this is all the more worrying. Reject. (P.S.: As an interesting precedent showing that mediation is not a required step for Arbitration, User:Wik (R.I.P) opened an RfA on me without priorly asking me for mediation. And I got on a permanent revert parole for it.). --Cantus 07:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] and Nysus

I am requesting mediation with user Nysus. I need help breaking a log jam as to who's questions to the other are the FIFO predicate to being able to honestly restore the dialog. It seems that Nysus insists I must answer him questions 1st, whereas I am pursuaded that he is asking loaded questions which would be moot if he would simply answer certain ones I have already posed. This discussion has been regarding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Archived and ongoing cases

User:Gene Poole and User:Gzornenplatz, User:Samboy
- Mediation declined. See Archive 9 for details.

Slrubenstein and user:Darrien
- Matter resolved. See Archive 9 for details.

User:Rorschach567 and User:Michael Rawdon
- Mediation underway with Danny. See Archive 8 for the request.

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 - S V

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.