Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sannse (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 17 November 2004 (→[[User:Pnikolov]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
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.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full.

Notes and Guidelines:

  1. Those involved may summarise as they see it, the need for mediation.
  2. Only matters related to arranging mediation belong here, this page isn't a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.
  3. Please put a note on the relevant talk page(s) that mediation has been sought.
  4. Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment


See #Archives for past requests.

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)

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas due (only) to the size of this section.

Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, Saint Andrew, Jesus

These are NPOV dispute. Some Administrators threaten me to block me. Help! Rantaro 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure mediation really is what you are looking for? Have a look at the top of the page, and especially WP:Dispute resolution. I am not sure it is, and neither am I sure that mediation could help you. A WP:Request for comment would seem the way to go, if you don't think the discussion works. -- AlexR 06:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Andre and Sannse seems to be mediators, too. Could you mediate with mediators? Rantaro 09:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obviously I can't respond as a mediator to this request but a couple of points - Andre is an advocate rather than a mediator. I'm a mediator, but that doesn't affect the process - it just means I cannot mediate in this case. For the rest, someone else will have to respond. -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am willing to step in and mediate if you can specify with whom you want to mediate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I don't know what the current status is with this mediation, but having intervened in an earlier situation involving Rantaro, & having read the relevant sections of the talk pages of these articles, it appears to me that whenever Rantaro gets into a disagreement with another party, she/he becomes worried that she/he will be banned or blocked from Wikipedia. Would whoever aids in this mediation determine if my impression is correct, & if so let Rantaro know that we do not ban people simply for disagreeing with other Wikipedians? (People do get banned as a result of disagreements, but only because they have broken other rules: harassment, excessive reversions, etc., & as far as I can tell Rantaro has done none of these acts.) -- llywrch 20:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


User:RickK

RickK banned a user, solely over an edit dispute at Larry Sanger. The three-reverts rule did not apply, vandalism was clearly not occurring. Wert

Have you tried discussion on this issue with other users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? If so, please leave a link here to the discussion. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


User:FeloniousMonk and User:Kim Bruning

Hmm, I'm trying to explain to Feloniousmonk that

  • He shouldn't misrepresent wikipedia policy to folks.
  • He might want to learn some things about it still, so as to solve the problem above

And hmm well,

  • He shouldn't misrepresent what other people have been saying (including me! :-)

I don't really intend to attack him on any of these points, I'd just like to point out that he should improve on them. He keeps misunderstanding me for some reason though, right now he probably thinks I'm out for his blood.

I've already tried talking with him onUser Talk:FeloniousMonk. I've tried asking Jwrosenzweig for advice and I'd also asked Jimbo Wales (who is known to remain very cool headed :-) ) if maybe he could have a chat with FeloniousMonk, though this discussion was distorted by misunderstandings again, and I don't think Jimbo even got the message.

I have not attempted RFC, because I think the pattern would repeat there, making it harder to reconcile. (Though I'd certainly do so if people really insist.)

Perhaps a mediator acting as a filter would prevent further misunderstandings from occurring, I certainly hope so. So I'd like to officially ask for mediation in this matter.

Kim Bruning 21:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I decline this particular mediation for three reasons:

  • It is my position that this RfM was not made in good faith, but that it is another instance of Kim Bruning's long-running badgering and bullying of me. That Kim Bruning has a past history of bullying me is a fact borne out by ample evidence, including an entire 1/2 page of Jimbo's Talk page memorializing Kim's idea constructive criticism while repeatedly refusing my suggestion that we agree to assume the other's good faith, shake hands, part friends and go our separate ways to leave the other to contribute unmolested. Kim's incessant badgering and my responses to it finally necessitated Jimbo telling both parties to chill. Within hours of Jimbo telling us both to chill Kim began this RfM.
  • Kim has failed to state (despite repeated calls to do so elsewhere) exactly what policies I am so unclear on that it requires Jimbo's attention and an RfM, and exactly why it's such a pressing matter that he had to go to Jimbo, and failing there, begin this RfM, less than one week after badgering me on my Talk page with ""I'd really love to see what'd happen if you had a short debate with Jimbo Wales on wikipedia policy. If you're feeling shy or so, I'd talk with him first if you like.". My one or two instances of either misunderstanding or misstating policies were minor and honest mistakes. That Kim continually blows these one or two minor instances out of proportion is material to my claim he is badgering and bully me. I should point out that Kim himself is unclear on the policies and misstated them himself as shown on the previous version of Jimbo's Talk page referenced above, a point of no small irony and relevance and one apparently lost on Kim. Res ipsa loquitur.
  • I have asked Kim repeatedly to leave me alone, yet he continues with actions like this and those at Jimbo's page. Kim is officially on my 'ignore' list now, as I have absolutely no confidence in his good faith due to his actions against me. I'm sorry, but he's earned it from my perspective. I see no point in my going through this process to assuage his concern when he's shown so little respect for mine.

Instead, I make this counter-offer (again)- that Kim and I agree to assume the other's good faith, shake hands, and go our separate ways to leave the other to contribute unmolested.--FeloniousMonk 16:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, you cannot bully me into not doing my job. Mediation is here to help us work out our differences, which we definately have, as you'll agree. I have not done anything to hurt you so far, please believe me. If you refuse mediation, I'm afraid my next step will have to hurt though. Are you sure about this? Kim Bruning 17:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
QED. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Kim's comments above do not constitute bullying? By an admin, no less.
As I've said before Kim, you've never established that there is indeed "a job" that needs to be done here. What you fail to understand is that every time you threaten me thusly, every time you drag me before Jimbo or up for RfM it is just adding one more bullet point to my already long list of evidence that you are indeed bullying me. You have crossed the line and abused your position as an admin bullying me, even a senior sysop has written to me that you have. As I've said before, I will use every method wikipedia provides to protect myself from persecution in the form in malicious prosecution. Continue on your present path badgering and threatening me and I will be the one seeking recourse. One more action from you, and it is I that will have all the evidence I need for a rock-solid case against you. BTW, just because you choose to ignore Jimbo's order that we both must chill, doesn't mean that I will as well. I'm done with you. Time to chill ;-). --FeloniousMonk 17:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I want to reassure you that any mediation would look at both sides of the dispute and try to resolve your concerns as well as Kim's. That said, it is also a completely voluntary process, and if you choose not to participate that is entirely up to you. If you do choose not to participate, Kim may choose to ask for arbitration – although I would strongly urge both of you to consider that a last resort and try to see if you can resolve your differences amicably – whether that is within the mediation process or not. -- sannse (talk) 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sannse, my offer to Kim to settle our differences amicably remains on the table.
I appreciate your reassurance about the RfM process. I admit to having some reservations about the impartiality of official proceedings adjudicating disputes involving admins. I will consider your comments further and may indeed reverse my decision. I will also point out here that Kim's actions have helped me build a very strong case against him for bullying and abusing his position as an admin, and that I have met all requirements but one for taking it to arbitration, which seems certain to happen considering Kim's past performance and constant refusal to cease and accept my offers to settle this matter.
Would you please clarify something for me. How does the RfM process determine the good faith of an RfM and the person bringing it? I ask this because Jimbo told both Kim and me yesterday to "chill", yet Kim starts right back at it immediately the same day with this RfM, making the bad faith of his RfM action implicit.
I'll get back to you on whether I've reconsidered participating in this RfM.--FeloniousMonk 18:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It can be very difficult for both sides to trust the intent of the other, but I have had the experience within mediation of that trust developing over time. From a mediator's point of view, I consider it important for me to start with the assumption that both sides are acting in good faith - although my views on that may change over time, and if I became convinced otherwise I would end a mediation attempt. For your other concern - I think the main thing here is careful choice of mediator. If you can choose someone who you both feel comfortable with, that is ideal. All the current mediators are also admins, but that covers a wide range of styles and opinions. If you choose to try mediation, hopefully you can decide on a mediator that you feel you can trust. -- sannse (talk) 20:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sannse, your explanation helped me. Were I to agree to mediation here, it would only be if we included as an item on the agenda for resolution my claim that Kim is indeed bullying and harassing me. If the mediation will cover that issue, that would go a long way to get me to agree to this mediation. Another option is to begin a separate RfM against Kim for harassment, but it doesn't make a lot of sense considering we already have this dialog open here.--FeloniousMonk 21:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, mediation is always a two sided process, another RfM isn't needed - this mediation would be to discuss Kim's concerns and yours -- sannse (talk) 21:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered, and I agree to this mediation with Kim Bruning as long as it is understood and agreed that the mediation process will also address my concerns over the following issues and will give equal time to their consideration with the purpose being to resolve them and to stop Kim Bruning from continuing as described below should they be determined to be well-founded.

Specifically, my claims to be addressed in mediation are that Kim Bruning has:

  1. Bullied and badgered me - Since our first encounter Kim Bruning has gone out of his way to seek me out and confront me in a inflammatory and provocative fashion over nugatory, ill-defined and inflated concerns.
  2. Conducted malicious prosecution and abuse of process - Kim has continued to engage me and threaten me with wikipedia processes with the knowledge that his claims against me lack merit, and brought for a reason (harassment and annoyance) other than to seek a official wikipedia determination of the claim. For example, less than 24 hours after Jimbo summed up Kim's concerns and my response as "a huge meta-debate which managed in large part to avoid discussing any actual particulars of anything at all", in essence frivolous and without merit, and told both Kim and myself to "chill" on the matter, Kim Bruning started this meretricious and baseless Request for mediation.
  3. Abused his position - In conducting himself as described above Kim Bruning has abused his position as a sysop. For example, on this page you will find an instance of Kim Bruning once again invoking his position and "his job" as justification for harassing me over non-specific, frivolous matters.

--FeloniousMonk 20:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you FeloniousMonk.

The next stage is to choose your mediator. I am available, or we can ask another mediator from the list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. The main thing is to find one that you can both agree on. The other question is where mediation should take place. This can be on the old mediation bulletin board, on IRC, by email - or in any other way agreed by you both and your mediator. My own belief is that email is a good way to start. Please both let me know your opinions on these two questions. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the available mediators seem ok by me, perhaps Feloniousmonk has a preference? I wouldn't mind if you did mediation. I'd prefer mediation per E-mail, since that'd help with filtering communications. Kim Bruning 20:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Boraczek

Mediation requested with Boraczek. He obviously doesn't understand, despite valiant efforts by me and others to explain things to him in simple terms, that these articles are supposed to be NPOV, that facts are needed rather than opinions, and that he cannot destroy documented statements and replace them with opinions or even factually incorrect information. Discussion with him borders on the impossible: he refuses to answer direct questions, preferring instead to push his POV over and over à la VeryVerily. See, for example, Joseph Stalin, Kulak, Collectivisation in the USSR, Ludo Martens, Free world, Great Purge, and Communism, just to name seven, and their associated talk pages.

Lately Boraczek has also taken to following me around and spitefully reverting changes to articles that he never would have seen had I not edited them. See, for example, Weathermen and Boricua Popular Army.

I have very little confidence that mediation with this person will succeed, but let's give it a try anyway. Shorne 10:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to join the request for mediation, because I find Shorne's behavior unacceptable and I think his current attitude makes reaching a consensus impossible. I hope this mediation helps. Boraczek 10:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll volunteer to mediate here, if both parties can agree to having me as a mediator. We can go about this in several ways - as a subpage here, via e-mail, via a real-time discussion as would be done with IRC or via IM, or the old mediation board. I have no preference as to which of these is used. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:50, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Thank you, grunt. I am glad you volunteered to mediate. As for the method, I would like to avoid a real-time discussion, because I am not a native speaker of English and sometimes I lack a word or phrase to clearly and precisely express my thoughts. So it will be easier for me if I can think for a while or look something up in a dictionary. I will be glad to know Shorne's preferences. Boraczek 17:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to you as mediator and am willing to accept your kind offer if it is acceptable to Boraczek and if you have no significant predisposition to either party. I want the whole thing to be done on Wikipedia, in public, where the evidence will endure in a form that cannot later be denied. Shorne 17:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All right with me. Boraczek 17:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So be it; let's get this started then. I have created a subpage here where the proceedings will take place. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Users CheeseDreams, SIrubenstein and Amgine

For ease I've grouped these two together, and for respect I've kept them separate below the above heading as they were posted by those seeking mediation. FT2 22:31, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


(1) Users CheeseDreams and Amgine, by Slrubenstein

Several days ago Cultural and historical background of Jesus because CheeseDream and I had begun an edit war. Since then there have been mounds of discussion about the various issues. Although CheeseDreams and Amgine often call for votes on specific points and claim to represent a consensus version, these votes are generally on matters of content, and follow inadequate discussion. I find it practically impossible to have a civil, productive discussion with these two contributors, and feel that the process has been hijacked.

There are two major substantive concerns. One -- which has been discussed various times with mixed results -- is the nature of the article. CheeseDream considers it a violation of POV to assume Jesus existed, and has claimed that the article should simply be about Roman Palestine between 1 and 33 CE; most others believe it is legitimate to include Jesus in the title and article; I have pointed out that this article began as a daughter article from the Jesus page when that page became too long. The original purpose of the page was to provide an account of how academic critical historians and Bible scholars view Jesus' life (the bulk of the Jesus article provides an account from a Christian point of view).

The second concerns verifiability. CheeseDream and Amgine have proposed and called for votes on various passages that include assertions of fact that I believe are flat out wrong and do not reflect any of a range of views of current academic researchers. I have asked each of them, several times, to provide evidence and sources. Both have refused. Instead, they have demanded I provide sources for my claims. I have provided my sources, and they have dismissed my research. At one point, user:Mpolo asked a question and I gave a well-researched answer -- which CheeseDream dismissed by saying "someone Jewish is best placed to find out the answers. CheeseDreams 10:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)" (the entire exchange is now in Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2.

I admit that the talk page, with two archived pages, is now very long and it would take a long time for a mediator to go through the whole thing. Alas, the length of the discussion is in part evidence of the problem -- and I believe it is largely caused by CheeseDream and a few others, most recently Amgine's, lengthy but utterly uninformed arguments. However, I have a specific request: one section of the discussion, "the new messiah paragraph" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph illustrates all of the problems I am having with CheeseDream and Amgine. This very long section (which CheeseDream recently divided, a little arbitrarily, into several parts) is basically a debate over two proposed revised sections of the article, one by Amgine, and one by me. After proposing his version, Amgine wrote "this is only a first attempt, so go ahead and rip on it." Along with other users, I pointed out various problems almost all of which were dismissed. I asked several times for sources and proof and was ignored or rebuked. I then proposed my version and it was dismissed out of hand. I asked what was wrong with my version and the answer was basically that it wasn't Amgine's.

The following (and, surrently, last) section -- CheeseDream's paragraph on Messianic Movements -- also provides a very clear example of my difficulty communicating (working productively on the article, via the talk page) with CheeseDreams.

The effect of all of this is that any question I ask is brushed off, and any suggestion I make is brushed off. It is as if Amgine and CheeseDream want to ban me from working on this article. This is especially upsetting to me as I have done considerable research on this topic, and with every comment of theirs, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that CheeseDream and Amgine have done none. I thought Danny would be a well-situated mediator, but see he has resigned. I think Bcorr would be a good mediator as well. Slrubenstein 17:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have not recieved notice of this request for mediation CheeseDreams 21:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Amgine is the only one of the three editors currently active in this dispute, to submit a version of the article which he thinks is the best one, User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 currently that's about where the consensus building attempt stands. As I see it, Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein are very close to agreement on substantial portions of the text, and I believe a good foundation for consensus would be for the two of them to also propose their own version of what the best article would be. The two of them do not seem inclined to listen to each other and I think mediation would be a poor solution, arbitration might be more suitable. All 3 of the above have made substantial contributions to the article and to the discussion. User:FT2 was also involved in discussion, attempting to assist the goal of reaching consensus... FT2's comments might well be solicited on this.Pedant 22:22, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
See below for my comments on CheeseDreams/SIRubenstein, I suggest we combine these two if possible. FT2 22:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: Users CheeseDreams and Amgine by Slreubenstein

I wholeheartedly accept this request for mediation.

Response to Request for Mediation: Users CheeseDreams Amgine by Slrubenstein
Paragraph 1
Dispute. The edit revisions are first mentioned on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2 dated Nov. 1, more than two weeks ago. First mention - Slreubenstein reporting his revert of CheeseDreams edits. While many votes have occurred on a variety of topics, only a single instance of more than 50 occasions shows a first vote by myself, and no calls for votes. It is not possible to "hijack" the process at Wikipedia, although it is certainly possible to distort it; the articles are not "owned". This characterization by Slrubenstein has been repeated during the discussion. (edit - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Paragraph 2
Dispute. Multiple votes developed a consensus regarding these issues. (see Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Summary of Summary discussions/votes and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Summary of Votes on outstanding NPOV queries and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2#Discussion of Key Issues and Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2#Votes on outstanding NPOV queries) Previous mediator (User:FT2) specifically addressed the point of "daughter article".
Note, FT2 is not an official mediator; many of the votes were called for by CheeseDream -- in my opinion, prior to adequate discussion, and as an attempt to end discussion.Slrubenstein
Response to Slrubenstein's note: While it is possible FT2 was not acting in official capacity as a mediator, it was assumed he was acting as a mediator as his actions suggested it, and the reactions of other contributors to those actions, including those of Slrubenstein. - Amgine 01:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To expand on Slrubenstein's statement above, there were approximately five separate votes on the question of what the article is about. Although the wording changed with regularity, the consistent majority opinion is best summed by Pedant's wording: the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion and really there is not much need to discuss who it is that does or doesn't believe Jesus actually lived, the article is about the culture and events of the 'time in which Jesus is said to have lived', which in one vote carried 5 agree to 2 disagree and on two other occasions was not contested in discussion. Similar consensus agreed the article should include asides about Jesus as relevant, as opposed to focusing solely on the context. A vote also specifically rejected focusing this article exclusively as a review of Jesus' life. - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Paragraph 3
Dispute. Previous votes were called for by previous mediator. Citations have been offered in the manner of links and external links, as well as keywords. On Wikipedia see Messiah and List of messiah claimants and Jewish eschatology and Mandeans. Upon dismissal of these citations, Slrubenstein was challenged to present juried citation for the exclusion. He returned with citations which did not address the issue. ("I cannot give you a specific page where they say that there were no other groups of messiahs -- they just never mention it." see Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#(part 6)) Furthermore, none of the cited texts were of peer-reviewed published articles, as requested. The question of citations was brought to personal talk pages, where my request for cooperation was rebuffed. See User talk:Slrubenstein#Citation discussion.
Note: I provided citations for all of my claims; the citations are from scholarly books, written by recognized scholars, and frequently cited in scholarly literature. When I wrote that none of these books mention other Messiahs, I explained that that was a major reason for suspecting that Amgine and CheeseDream's claims were without foundation; I asked them to provide sources or citations and they did not. Slrubenstein
Response to Slrubenstein's note: It is a subtle differentiation, but Slrubenstein did not provide any citation for his claims. What he attempted to cite was a lack of refutation, which is not in fact evidentiary at all. Furthermore, he has made a considerable number of claims, which might all have been based on the six texts/five authors offere, but he did not present those as citations to back up any other claim. - Amgine 01:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What Amgine says is true. I contend that the essential point is that what I wrote was based on serious research and is verifiable, and I presented my sources. I do not believe that what Amgine and CheeseDream wrote is based on serious research or is verifiable. I may be wrong about that so I asked them for their sources. They refuse to provide any sources. Slrubenstein
Response to Slrubenstein's comment: See Paragraph 3 above. - Amgine 17:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"What Amgine says is true"CheeseDreams 19:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Paragraph 4
Dispute. A history of the section in question begins on Talk:Wesley#Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, supported by the mediator, in an attempt to rewrite the paragraphs. The goal was to edit these paragraphs over which the primary feudants disagreed without their direct involvement. Using a variety of sources but primarily the exact text from the revision war paragraphs, a compromise text was proposed. (see User:Pedant/CaHBJ) CheeseDreams chose not to involve; Slrubenstein chose to involve. Of the 5 specific edits brought forth by Slrubenstein, 4 are currently a part of the proposed version.
I further dispute Slrubenstein's characterization that the majority of the section is a discussion of the merits two competing proposals; in fact his proposal is presented for the first time more than half through the section (more than that in time), along with his call for (another) consensus vote in the last section. By my count there were 6 revisions to the compromise text, plus an additional copy, to be contrasted with 3 copies of Slrubenstein's proposed version (I did not diff these copies for edits.) Further, I specifically dispute the characterization that its length is primarily due to passages by either myself or CheeseDreams. I will gladly perform textual analysis on this section using standard tools, such as NUDIST, if the mediator should request it, or can suggest (and offer to pay for) several experts in the field to perform the relevant analyses. Or the mediator is invited to count lines her/himself. (edit - Amgine 07:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))
Paragraph 5
While not disputed, it is noted that this section developed after the point at which CheeseDreams, citing Wikipedia policy to avoid inevitable conflict, stated publically he would avoid any and all direct discussion with Slrubenstein, a policy Slrubenstein is now claiming as obstructionist.
Paragraph 6
Dispute, as exemplified by Paragraph 4, above, Slrubenstein's contributions are both sought and encouraged, at least by myself, and further are included in current edits.

- Amgine 22:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(2) Slrubenstein, by CheeseDreams

The following includes Quotes from Slrubenstein.

Issues of civility (from a single article talk page, in a single fortnight):

  • Stop distorting the facts, Cheese (when I disagreed with him on what the facts were)
  • With all due respect, FT2, you misunderstand the situation (FT2 was mediating the debate)
  • Well, a definition that includes "etc." is a piss-poor definition
  • I have many doubts about your memory
  • This verges on racism (other contributers disagreed)
  • CheeseDreams verges on racism (section title later removed by FT2)
  • Lacking any explanation on your point, your comment was racist (after (a) I initially provided explanation, and (b) other contributers disagreed that it was racist, and (c) I asked for an apology for the racist slur)
  • I never called you a racist (quite obviously not true)
  • two ways I read your penultimate sentence, and they are both moronic
  • Your claim........is frankly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard
  • This summary mischaracterizes the discussion (when Amgine summarised the votes after archiving, and issues in the discussion and the fact that there was not agreement on some points - absolutely no-one else objected to the summary)
  • You are an intellectual coward (when I refused to respond directly to him until he comply with Civility policy)
  • Amgine is simply revealing his ignorance
  • CheeseDream, like Amgine, fundamentally misunderstands the Wikipedia process
  • it comes to facts, Cheese's notion of compromise is just silly (compare my compromises with User:Mpolo)
  • I know from my research that many statements by Amgine and CheeseDreams are wrong

(from his talk page)

  • I think CheeseDream has been acting in a malicious and damaging way (because I formally objected to his Gerrymandering, and reverted some of his POV edits)

(from Amgine's talk page)

  • You have made your own ignorance clear. (referring to Amgine's principle of trying to produce compromise)
  • That your claims to this ignorant authority have taken up so much space on the talk page isonly obstructionist (referring to the same attempt at compromise)
  • You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way (again)
I hope only that the mediator look at my entire statements, and look at them in context. Slrubenstein

Issues of debating behaviour

I think we are on very shaky ground, rejecting good research because we don't like the researcher. (when I objected to personal research based on the Wikipedia:No personal research policy, and his own statement that We should rely on research done by others, and that Most historians see Hinduism as coming into existence in the 19th century as a result of English colonialism (which is blatently not true))

Call me a snob, but if it isn't in a peer-reviewed publication or a book published by an academic press, or by an established scholar, I do not think it should be described as "historical evidence." (this would discount the tomb of tutankhamun being "historical evidence", since it was found by a camel herder)

This was in the context of a discussion of published works by people claiming to be (or claimed to be) scholars. Slrubenstein

Further I object to the manner in which, as a (protected page) debate clearly approaches consensus (predominantly against his POV), Slrubenstein opens up an entirely new issue about what the nature and title of the page ought to be. When consensus on this new issue was predominanly reached against him, he opened up a new debate on all the original issues that we had just reached consensus on.

I explained that I felt this issue underlied most of the other issues onder discussion. I raised legitimate points that are worth considering. If no one wants to consider my points that is fine. But just because a few people agree with CheeseDreams does not mean that I cannot raise important issues on the talk page. Slrubenstein

In addition, when the debate went to voting, I noted (by looking at his contributions list) that Slrubenstein had sent comments to people who appear to support his POV (from their edit history), but not to those who didn't. To me, this seems unethical, and Gerrymandering. From his talk page, User:Eloquence objected to the behaviour as well.

I explained that I was merely contacting the earliest contributors to the discussion -- people whose views I was unsure of. Eloquence never commented on this discussion. Several other editors explained to CheeseDreams that I had not violated any Wikipedia policy and in fact that what I had done was common. Slrubenstein
Rebuttal of Slrubenstein's explanation: In a third event, Slrubenstein posted to four user talk pages (see User talk:FT2#cultural and historical context of Jesus and User talk:Wesley#Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus and User talk:Jayjg#help? and User talk:Jwrosenzweig#help?), with the more neutral of these editors receiving named sections and the more POV editors sections entitled "help?" - Amgine 01:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You may also like to see User talk:AndyL#Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and User talk:John Kenney#Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and User talk:Mpolo#Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and User talk:Pedant#Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and User talk:Jwrosenzweig#Anger toward God / Jesus, and User talk:Jayjg#Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Note, that User talk:The Rev of Bru was not at any point asked to get involved by Slrubenstein. CheeseDreams 19:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An additional incident after opening this Request for mediation: on a consensus vote which was not decisive in any direction, contacted User talk:AndyL#request for help, User talk:172#request for comments, and User talk:John Kenney#request for help to gain votes for his text. Amgine
I regard such behaviour by Slrubenstein as absolutely abhorrent, and would now like a decision via arbitration to prevent any further such incidence of it. CheeseDreams 21:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, Slrubenstein proposing his own version of a paragraph for an article, when a consensus paragraph was otherwise being hammered out. The paragraph he propose completely ignored the problems raised during the consensus paragraph's creation, and in fact completely ignored the consensus paragraph. The exact response by Amgine to him on this issue was My specific objection was you chose to discard an extent compromise text without attempcting to improve it, and instead substitute your own.

Further, re-raising slurs when the other contributers had moved away from that issue as it was not relevant.

In addition, going to mediation without notifying either myself, or Amgine.CheeseDreams 21:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine is the only one of the three editors currently active in this dispute, to submit a version of the article which he thinks is the best one, User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 currently that's about where the consensus building attempt stands. As I see it, Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein are very close to agreement on substantial portions of the text, and I believe a good foundation for consensus would be for the two of them to also propose their own version of what the best article would be. The two of them do not seem inclined to listen to each other and I think mediation would be a poor solution, arbitration might be more suitable. All 3 of the above have made substantial contributions to the article and to the discussion. User:FT2 was also involved in discussion, attempting to assist the goal of reaching consensus... FT@'s comments might well be solicited on this.Pedant 22:23, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Comment on CheeseDreams and SIRubenstein:

Personal view, as mediator to date:
I think the above two cases are at heart not necessarily huge. I've seen attempts by both to learn to moderate their mannerisms - at times each has worded things unfortunately and upset the other. I would support mediation rather than arbitration as a first step, because its more about learning not to be offended (personally) and step back a bit, than "who's right or wrong". Both need it pointed out how they can put a foot wrong, and to see how each has helped towards this disagreement in some ways. Both are keen on their subjects, and with a little discipline on whats valid and how to better approach it, even the few areas they dont agree might be easier resolved.
What I see as key issues are:
  • Both CheeseDreams and SIrubenstein have at times used phrases that "pressed buttons", and have sparked the other. Both can be a bit sensitive to buttons being pressed. So they have without meaning to do so, provoked each other and this has undone their good work and damaged trust they might have had.
  • They have not yet established a common understanding of any real difference they may have, so they don't know where the other's coming from and at times guess (wrongly) or assume (poorly). At times each has shown a "Christian" background which has pushed POV strongly into the debate and at times each has been strictly neutral. So there is a feel of bad faith, as they haven't yet worked out if they're dealing with neutral or POV. Each assumes they are dealing with bad faith and POV. Actually it would be more accurate to say each is dealing with sensitivity, lack of thought and accidental button pushing.
  • There are strong POV's expressed, but I think both would listen to other wiki-ists and be guided and both have shown by their talk to date that any POV issues they have are not fanatical ones - they can be worked round by mediation and asking questions before assuming problems. "How does that help?" or "What's the importance of that?" are good ones.
  • They get tangled up in irrelevance, and what's often "clinically accurate" is taken personally.
  • Simple example #1 (no discussion needed): a comment was made meaning "shouldn't a Jewish source be checked", became badly worded and escalated into a comment to the effect that only jews know about synagoguies is a bit of a racist assumption, and so we get allegations of racism. This is banal and both should refuse to engage in it.
  • Simple example #2: A comment of disagreement by one becomes a show of bad attitude in the eyes of the other, and a question by one becomes an accusation in the eyes of the other.
  • Instead of tackling point at a time and resolving it, they try to debate on all fronts simultaneously, so nothing's ever finalised. They should (my opinion) discuss one select area, put it to bed, move on to the next. This would be far more satisfying and productive.
  • There has been POV. There has been irrelevance. There has been argument over how big "Jesus and his story" should feature in what is basically supposed to be a background description. These are the key issues, and in my view, resolvable if they wished. Their views on them are actually quite close looking from here.
Hope that helps. FT2 22:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I am autistic. I cannot not think on all fronts at once. CheeseDreams 23:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that FT2 has basically the right idea here. As an involved party, but on the sidelines of this dispute, I see that we constantly get tantalizingly close to consensus on one issue or another, then an unfortunate comment (or unfortunate understanding of a comment) knocks the whole consensus-building back to zero. I think we're really close, and FT2 has shown a lot of patience and willingness to listen in trying to get the issue settled. It should be noted, that the dispute, while centered on "Cultural and Historical background", perhaps, extends onto two or three other Talk pages of the Jesus series. Mpolo 09:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems from what's been said here, that FT2 has been doing a good job of mediating. I wonder whether it might be better to continue with him as mediator rather than introducing a new person to learn all the complicated aspects of this case. While he is not an official mediator, I see no reason why he shouldn't continue to work with you if that is likely to give the best result. Whether you continued on the talk page, or move to a private venue for this would be up to you. However, if this is unacceptable to some or all of you, then we could look for a mediation committee member to help instead. -- sannse (talk) 13:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral - Although I have personally appreciated FT2's actions in this situation, I have the following concerns, and other concerns, as to why it might not be appropriate for him to be mediator:
  1. Slrubenstein has disregarded some or all of FT2's RFC. See Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#FT2's comments versus Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Proposed Changes to Protected Version: early relations between Jews and Christianity and much of Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#New Messiah paragraph
  2. FT2's moderate restatements of positions of consensus which have been approved by vote are included in the compromise text of the article which Slrubenstein disputes. See User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 and related votes commented in the wikitext, especially User:Pedant:CaHBJv1#After Jesus.
Since I am very concerned that a compromise on this article be completed and the article be reopened for editing, but am relatively new to Wikipedia, I am not sure if these concerns would prejudice the question. - Amgine 15:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My concerns are (a) continued incivility (b) refusal to apologise (c) Refusal to submit to consensus unless it is pro-his POV. CheeseDreams 19:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediators

It is true that I have treated FT2 as another editor and contributor, not as an official mediator with special authority. It is true that I have objected to a number of his statements, but only because I think the reflect a misunderstanding of the history and historiography of 1st century Judea and Galilee, and because he supported statements of fact that I believe to be wrong and unverifiable. These are substantive issues that bear on the accuracy of the article, and I think every editor has an obligation to raise these issues on talk pages. If we are to have a mediator whose task it is to mediate disputes over content -- substantive claims over Jewish/Christian history, that person has to have some basic understanding of historiography and the standards of historical research and scholarship. In this case I would prefer a mediator other than FT2 (BUT I must emphasize that I mean no disrespect to FT2 as a member of the Wikipedia community, and wlecome his continued comments on the page in question). My request for mediation is motivated by a more "meta" concern, which has to do with the way I, Amgine, and CheeseDream interact, and the process that has evolved on the talk page. I do not think that simply voting on issues is an adequate or appropriate solution. It doesn't matter whether 100 people vote for my version, or 100 people vote for Amgine's version, if the two versions are unverifiable and inaccurate. We need a way to address the issue of verifiability and accuracy. I thought Danny would be a well-situated mediator, but see he has resigned. I think Bcorr would be a good mediator as well. Slrubenstein

Comment on Slrubenstein's note: Due to Slrubenstein's history in this mediated topic of selective notification (See above rebuttal this section) for people sympathetic to his POV, I would feel very uncomfortable with any mediators he would suggest. - Amgine 18:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding about the role of the mediator here. Mediation is not arbitration and the mediator will not made decisions on content. Nor are we able to make policy decisions on issues such as how consensus should be measured. What we can do is try to guide the discussion, promote understanding and try and find areas of compromise to soothe disputes. But that said, mediation is still a useful process, and if you prefer an official mediator, that's fine.

I think Danny may still be available (the mediator list may be out of date) and Bcorr is still around too.

Amgine and CheeseDreams - do you have any preferences as to mediator? Please don't disregard Danny and Bcorr because Slrubenstein suggested them. The choice of mediator needs to be someone both sides can agree to - so it will have to be someone that Slrubenstein trusts, as well as someone you can trust. I suggest looking at Danny and Bcorr's user pages and contributions to see either is someone you could work with. I can recommend both of them as non-biased and effective mediators. -- sannse (talk) 19:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of the role of the mediator, and that the process is not arbitration. I am also aware of Slrubenstein's prior actions which appear to me to be mediation in bad faith. Having reviewed the two suggested mediators, I would feel very uncomfortable with User:Danny who has created articles with topics potentially related to this discussion (which I have not reviewed, but assume Slrubenstein has.) I do not have any specific objection to User:Bcorr, but readily admit the fact Slrubenstein has suggested him raises my index of suspicion.
I am not familiar with the mediation committee members, and could not reasonably suggest any single individual, although I appreciate your approach to this discussion. Therefore I suggest User:Sannse as mediator. - Amgine 19:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we cannot have User:Sannse then, What about User:Angela? I think she would be above suspicion.

I think User:Llywrch, User:Dante Alighieri, and User:Cimon Avaro would be neutral too. I have chosen these as they have not been terribly involved in religion based articles, and therefore are unlikely to have strong POV on the subject matter. CheeseDreams 19:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sidenote by FT2

(Side note to some of the above - if I had taken offence, I would have said so, and clearly, and explained why. I appreciate that some of SIrubensteins comments looked to CheeseDreams as attacks, but I didn't take them that way nor do I believe they were. They were differences of opinion, and for the most part accepted in perfectly good faith. The few times the debate has gone off the rails, were as likeloy as not to be either. But be assured, I don't feel either party has acted wrongly towards me, and neither should worry if that was the case. FT2 02:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

More seriously, this is too long. It has become an extension to the debate, and thats not what RfM is for. Neither party is majorly "at fault", both are anxious not to be blamed for things they didn't do, and fear the other is guilty of bad faith. But I think from the outside I can speak for all those involved and say to both, you are not seen as "the villains", either of you, by others. You both care a lot for this article, you haven't figured out how to work or trust together, and thats why we are willing and hopeful to help you fix that. You have to do a few things to make that possible though, and here they are:

  • You have to both assume that we know whats gone on, have read or can read the pages, are experienced in personal friction issues and NPOV or bad faith. So we know where you both stand, and explaining or refuting is not needed - we're ignoring exaggeration by either side already, without being asked.
  • You have to allow that we are not going to be easily swayed to attack either of you or buy into every negative thing said. So again, relax. Constant reiteration actually is not helpful, nor is "he said / she said".
  • We need to do this steop at a time. 'd like yes no or short comments to the following:
  1. Mediation - I am willing, sannse is, danny, angela, several have been mentioned. Pick someone between you whom you feel you could trust to be fair.
I would prefer that the mediators suggested decide among themseleves who has the time, interest, and confidence that they can handle the different threads of this. I'll accept whatever choice the mediation committee makes Slrubenstein
  1. Article - some good edits have been agreed. But as long as they arent posted, they remain constantly discussed. I would like to trust that we are close to agreement on several topics, and ask for a gentleman's agreement: if the page were unprotected, so it could be brought up to date as we agreed wordings, step at a time, would both of you be willing to agree not to edit in any major way, unless by explicit agreed consensus? And that if whoever was mediating reverted an edit as it seemed likely to cause problems, you would not re-revert? FT2 02:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
I am njust not sure how this would work out practically. In principle I agree, but there are many issues where CheeseDream and Amgine claims there is a consensus, and I believe there is none. There are some cases where you or others claim we are in agreement or very close, when I feel there are still basic issues that have not adequately been addressed. OF course, if we can go through specific edits step by step, make changes one at a time, I am fine with that. Slrubenstein

Choice of Mediator

I think the last of these questions is better dealt with once mediation is agreed - but I agree we should concentrate on getting the mediation started rather than on extending the argument here. First lets deal with the question of who should mediate. I'm afraid I'm not available for this one beyond these initial stages, but others have been suggested. Amgine and Slrubenstein what are your thoughts on the names CheeseDreams mentioned? -- sannse (talk) 15:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With the caveats mentioned above, I do not have the information to make an informed decision and would accept a mediator agreed to by the Mediation Committee. - Amgine 16:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(a) Would you accept any of my choices?
(b) Do you have any preference?
(c) If you have no preference would you accept someone I specifically choose from within the list I gave?
CheeseDreams 21:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(a) Yes
(b) None not already mentioned
(c) Certainly
- Amgine 22:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then we await the 3rd party. CheeseDreams 19:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Adam_Carr

I am requesting mediation with respect to a series of short biographical articles I wrote, in order to fill red (no-destination) Wikilinks on other articles I was editing. These are articles on primarily 19th Century Australian personalities who were active in the republican or independence movements. Each article was labeled {{msg: stub}}. Adam made useful contributions (with an occasional excess of POV); however, he also deleted most of the essential contributions I made to the original articles. I asked for an explanation, and he said, in so many words, that he was doing it out of spite, left over from previous edit conflicts on the Lyndon LaRouche articles (see Talk:William Spence and User_talk:Ambi#William_Spence. I welcome Adam's contributions, but not his subtractions, unless he can make a reasonable justification for them. Let me also say in advance that I would welcome mediation from anyone on the committee, with the sole exception of Bcorr. The disputed articles as of this writing are William Spence, H.C. Coombs, and John Dunmore Lang. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, please could you let Adam know of this request and invite him to this page to indicate if he is willing to take part in mediation. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 13:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This has now been done. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My position on Herschelkrustofsky is this: He is a self-admitted longtime member of the Lyndon LaRouche organisation, a corrupt, violent, fanatical, semi-fascist cult led by a convicted swindler and notorious anti-Semite. Herschelkrustofsky is also a proved liar and spreader of slanders against the integrity of anyone who opposes the LaRouche cult. His sole interest in Wikpedia is spreading LaRouche propaganda. No self-respecting encyclopaedia project would allow such a person to edit articles, and in my opinion Wikipedia should ban him from further participation. Wikpedia's failure to do so, or to protect serious editors against people like Herschelkrustofsky, Shorne and Hanpuk, is the main reason I have withdrawn from editing all non-Australian articles. Herschelkrustofsky has had no previous interest in Australian history, a subject about which he knows nothing, but has taken to editing Australian articles in order to support the absurd and offensive theory of the Australian LaRoucheites that various figures from Australian history are the ideological ancestors of LaRouchism. It is not acceptable for such a person to be editing Australian history articles. I have therefore written proper articles to replace the ones he wrote, and I have made it clear that I will revert any edits he makes to them. (That goes for Shorne too, who has intervened in support of Herschelkrustofsky in a sort of Wikipedian Hitler-Stalin pact). I do not intend withdrawing from this position. It's about time Wikipedia was forced to choose between the great majority of serious editors and the small handful of cultists and fanatics who are undermining the credibility of the whole project. Adam 05:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should we take this as a "no" to mediation? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adam has confirmed on my talk page that he is not declining mediation - although it's clear he has doubts about how effective it will be. So... if you still want to go ahead, I suggest we look for a mediator. I am not currently available due to other ongoing mediations, but please both look at the list of mediators on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and let me know if you have any preferences. We can then see if the mediators are available. -- sannse (talk) 22:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha

Please assist us in Aisha. OneGuy is insisting that his apologetic view on Aisha should get first mention before the more mainstream views. (unsigned by 168.209.97.34 - sig added by sannse)

Have you tried discussion on this issue with other users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? If so, please leave a link here to the discussion. In not, and if discussions the talk page have stalled, that seems a useful next step in this case -- sannse (talk) 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Pnikolov

As documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pnikolov, User:Pnikolov has repeatedly and egregiously insulted at least three Wikipedians, including myself. Other dubious conduct is also detailed there and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pnikolov. I was hoping that just raising a request for comment would get him to back off, but apparently all it is getting him to do is hide behind an anonymous IP address. I am asking for mediation (I'm not sure if any of the other people he has insulted want to join me; if so they can sign themselves up here). I will accept mediation by any member of the mediation committee. Given his behavior so far I can't imagine he will accept mediation, but I'm giving him the chance. If he does not I will certainly ask for arbitration, regardless of whether he will participate in the process or not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

What do you want? I don't understand. I can no longer edit with my old username because your friend, rrickK, who I wouldn't say anything about banned my IP (strangely, it happens so often, there is another request about him on this very page). He did me a favor because I don't wish to spend too much time here. (I wish I were at Edinburgh University to have more time to do so, though) And frankly, like I pointed earlier, communicating with you is not worth my time. If this is insulting to you, I am sorry. This is not a perfect world. We all make decisions based on some rationales. Simply put, I prefer to optimally allocate my time among activites that benefit me the most. That includes not communicating with people to whom I have to constantly explain my logic or actions which seem transparent to people of the level of intelligence that I normally surround myself with. A sufficient number of your comments have solidified my opinion about you. At some point your called that "hatred" or whatnot...well, yes, I do not like dumb people. Your web page's profile added additional evidence to my suspicions. So, that's it. You are PNikolov-free. Go, make the world ....a "better" place. And all the people who I commented about (according to you "insulted") happened to be graduates of the same university over a dispute for pages of THAT university. It is called conflict of interest. I think it is now resolved, so I am back to contributing where I normally do and you to whatever makes you happy. And if you prefer to waste with some requests for mediations and whatever else you like...go ahead. In economics (game theory), it is called Signalling. I take it to be a reflection of the almost non-existent opportunity cost of your time which only strengthens my opinions about you as noted above. But don't expect me to engage in some kind of lengthy polemic about numerous issues. It won't happen.

Pnikolov

For whatever it's worth, unless something was going on that I don't know about, I think RickK was out of line to block/ban Pnikolov. As for the opportunity cost of my time: it's pretty high, it's why I've never gone this route before. And I take the above as declining mediation, but it also sounds like he says he's going away, which I guess would resolve the matter. I reserve the right to re-open it if he continues to participate in Wikipedia and to hurl invective. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, the opportunity cost is very high. You don't have to say it...your postings display it. As an artist or whatever it is that you claim you are, you should know that you are better off showing things not saying them and leave the judgement to the rest. I am not declining anything, my dear...I just don't have the time to deal with this for the reasons given above. Don't take it personally. Given the alternative, I just don't want to deal with you. Thanks. --Pnikolov
My understanding of the above is that mediation won't take place at this time. Please let me know if I have misunderstood. If there is no further comment I will archive this tomorrow. -- sannse (talk) 22:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Archived and ongoing cases

  • Netoholic and Raul654
  • Users Ato and RaffiKojian regarding History of Turkey article

Archives

/Archive 0
/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9
/Archive 10
/Archive 11
/Archive 12

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&oldid=7594544"