Click 'show' to view an index of all archives
|
Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)
Rejected mediation request pages
|
Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that, in my opinion, called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [1].) I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or User:Nlu. However, I would like inputs on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it communist propganda to justify its claim over Taiwan? (Note that Taiwan-China relation is already a delicate topic on wikipedia) Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving consequences? --Freestyle.king
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
- [[3]] (Note: This attempt of negotiation results in a block from User:Nlu)
- [[4]] discussion
More available upon request
This was removed at some point; I disovered it in the history.
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- Should the administrators block editors, who remove the cartoons or move them behind a link?
- Should the cartoon image be moved behind a link (linkimage template)?
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- Should the administrators block editors, who remove the cartoons or move them behind a link?
- Should the cartoon image be moved behind a link (linkimage template)?
- This latter point addresses a consensus achieved by straw poll involving over 200 editors on the article in question, which finished around 10:1 against the position advanced by Raphael1 and Wikipidian. To include it on an RfM involving only those two users and one admin is absurd. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Straw polls are ineligible means to address minority issues. Raphael1 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
- Agree. Raphael1 20:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Wikipidian 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - there's nothing to mediate here, Raphael1 and Wikipidian are editing against a heavy consensus. I alone am not capable of changing how the cartoons display, thus a mediation with just me is pointless. You need to go to the article talk page and try to make your case there. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject, per Cyde's refusal to enter into mediation. Should he agree, I or one of the other mediators will re-examine the case, but this seems to me like a case that should first pass through RFC, and more talk page discussion may be necessary.
- For the Mediation Committee, Ral315.
After relative calm since November, a user has come back an insisted on editing, deleting, or otherwise corrupting the information previously agreed upon over this conflict.
Problems include -but are not limited to- previous
-Casualty numbers agreed upon, now deemed unsatisfactory by said user.
-2 views on issue, claimed as 'incompatible' (and thus deletable/editable) by said user.
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- Casualty box
- Several irregular sources of information (blogs?)
- The use of the word "invasion"
- Losses/gains from the war
Additional issues to be mediated
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the only party not to have agreed has not been active since the 23rd; is this issue stale with him not editing, or is this something that can and needs to be mediated without his involvement? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:56, 1 May 2006
(UTC)
- Given that the parties haven't answered my question, I will assume the request to be stale. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully call into question Essjay's decision. I, for one, assumed that the question was addressed to other members of the Committee. How can the parties decide to go on with a Mediation without the acceptance of one of the parties involved? Had we agreed, the Mediation would have had no value at all, as this goes against the guidelines of the Mediation Committee. Andrés C. 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many cases where one party on one side stops editing, but the problem remains between the other parties; in these cases, it is helpful for the mediation to continue without the party who is for all intents and purposes no longer involved. Hence why the parties were asked whether they felt the mediation could continue. From your comments (specifically "How can the parties decide to go on with a Mediation without the acceptance of one of the parties involved?"), I take it that the involvement of the departed party is essential, and as such, mediation cannot take place. If this is the case, exactly what about my decision are you calling into question? If it is not the case, then relist the request, answer the question, and the mediation will move forward. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
- User:Kitteneatkitten [21]
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- user:Kitteneatkitten insists that the term "classical liberalism" used in the Classical liberalism article is restricted to use by, or primarily used by, "libertarians." He is modifying the entire article to make it look like it's not a common term in political philosophy but that it's used by "libertarians" as "a libertarian project to associate with and claim for themselves America’s Founding Fathers and other early liberal figures, and to dissociate modern liberals with these figures" (his claim in the article's Talk page.) Kitteneatkitten continues to assert this though the sources in the article that use the term and talk about the philosophy are not libertarians, as far as I know. I've pointed out that he should be able to prove that they're libertarians before he makes such claims. "Classical liberalism" is a philosophy one is taught about in basic political philosophy classes in college; it's not some obscure term that only "libertarians" use. I would like Kitteneatkitten to stop doing this to the article: [22] As you can see, he's also deleting sources. RJII 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above was posted by RJII.
To make my claim a bit more clear, certainly nonlibertarians use the term "classical liberal" to describe historical figures such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. However, it is primarily libertarians who use the term, and they only use it to describe American libertarians. Personally, I am a great fan of Bill Clinton and his policies, which I believe reflect the ideals of early liberal figures such as Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Bentham, and Mill. According to the biased version of "classical liberalism" that RJII prefers, only his libertarian views are qualify as "classical liberal," while my views, such as the belief in universal health care, are not "classical liberal."
A simple Google search will illustrate this (assuming that you can identify a libertarian source, such as Ralph Raico, when you see it.)
Libertarians have frequently made the claim that liberals today have deviated from the principles of earlier liberals*, and it is libertarians who have stayed true. Claiming to be "classical liberals," is one of the ways they make this claim. The article before I edited was extremely one-sided, and I was not the first to object to its like of a NPOV. It states as a fact that libertarians are "classical liberals" even though many argue that are not liberal by any definition of the word.
As I noted in the talk page, I think it would be best to move directly to arbitration, because mediation will most likely be futile. From what I have read of the Wikipedia policy on arbitration, going through mediation first is strongly encouraged but not required. Given that I could not accept any compromise on this page that does not note in the first sentence that "classical liberal" is a term used primarily by libertarians that that their opinions about early liberal figures reflecting their philosophy are not facts, and that RJII strongly disagrees, a compromise between us is unlikely. These are factual issues about which we disagree, but which can be resolved by a third party.
I would also like to ask RJII to be more polite to me in this dispute. First he has accused me of being a conspiracy theorist in the talk page, and now has said that I have deleted sources in a context that implies I did so in bad faith.
In fact, in addition to being biased before I edited it, the article was repetitive and unwieldy, and three sources as well as some of the surrounding text were removed to make the article more readable and improve its style. Reading these two paragraphs in question before and after my changes will confirm this.
I would like RJII to stop editing this entry.
Kitteneatkitten 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to note, for the record, that I don't think that libertarianism is identical to classical liberalism. This is not about libertarianism for me. I'm just helping to present classical liberalism from sources that use the term that I've encountered (which as far as I know, are not "libertarians) RJII 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
[23]
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- User Col. Hauler is insisting that "Wee" is urine in the english language, which it's not. It is infact small. He keeps reverting my edits that try and seperate "Urine" from the word little, small etc. on the Wee Page.
- Talk:Wii#Pronuncation_discussion:_.22Wee.22_vs_.22We.22_etc.:
- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=wee - I linked this already but you conveniently choose to ignore it. Also read wee. --Col. Hauler 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Col. Hauler insists that Wee should be included when talking about how to pronounce Wii, when it allready states that it's pronounced We.
- Before you started your vandalism, it stated that it sounded like wee as well. It's an important point, it makes the name controversial and a bit ridiculous in any country where the term is used.
- "Mummy, I'm going to go play with my Wii?" .... Why do you fail to understand, repeatedly? As well as repeatedly vandalizing my user talk page.. --Col. Hauler 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He revert all my edits, and I revert his. I have tried talking to Col. Hauler but no resolution can be meet.
- Either User:Col. Hauler really thinks that the user below is my sockpuppet, or he is trying to disrupt my credibility. I have added myself to Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Havok to get this removed from my talk page and userpage. Havok (T/C) 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reported User:Col. Hauler for vandalizing my userpage, my talk page. He has also repetedly vandalized Wii, ex. [25]. Aswell as removing ((RFMF)) from his own talkpage. Havok (T/C) 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Little kids and immature losers use wee or wee wee as a synonym for urine.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Third Party!!
I'm also a major party to this "edit war", and my position can be seen on the talk page. I'd like to be involved with this mediation, and I've given new possible solutions that no one has mentioned (on the discuss page). I got a message that I am a sock puppet, but I'm not sure what that means. My position is pretty simple and I'd like it to be taken account with this moderation. Please glance at my edits and at the talk page (especially where striked out and moved text from the subsection "name") and my newest suggestions - I would like to be part of this mediation! 81.182.142.141 13:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues to be mediated
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
- Disagree. (for now) I would like to be represented as a party, especially since my edit to the article wee (completely separate article) got reverted and the history indicates this started a revert war between the parties involved in this one. Clearly the old one was a dicdef, so the new wee makes more sense, but is completely irrelevant of the Wii pronunciation issue. 81.182.142.141 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Disagreement among parties over whether to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Ral315
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- Should the opening line read that capital punishment is imposed "by the state" or "by the judiciary"
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
JCO312 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) agree[reply]
Coemgenus 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Agree[reply]
GreatKing 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Disagree, we no longer require the services of the Mediation Committee, we have solved the problem ourselves.[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject. Parties state they have solved the matter themselves. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
Sam Blanning: [29]
Gnetwerker: [30]
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
- User talk:Gnetwerker/Archive1
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Issues to be mediated
- Did Gnetwerker make personal attacks
- Was Sam Blanning's method of dispute resolution made with bad faith, cherry picking and/or red herrings.
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
- Agree. Paul Cyr 19:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Refuse. I am not involved in an ongoing dispute with either editor. I had a brief argument with Paul on WP:AN (which he links to) which I abandoned a week ago. His rather succint summary of the dispute above does not give me any clues as to what he expects to achieve from mediation. If Paul believes that he has an ongoing dispute with Gnetwerker, then I suggest that he removes my name from this request, otherwise the Committee will reject it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline: As noted by numerous other editors, there were no personal attacks made. I have no interest in participating in any kind of mediation with Paul Cyr. -- Gnetwerker 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
- WP:RFC [35]
- Various ineffectual attempts to mediate, including from at least one administrator, listed on the RfC page.
Issues to be mediated
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
- User:Xino has indicated that he does not wish to take part in mediation.[36] Please remove this request. RandyWang (raves/rants) 12:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject: Unfortunately, Xino refuses to particpate, so we cannot intervene. Having reviewed the matter, and in particular Xino's responses to others, I believe the matter should be referred to Arbitration.
- For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]