Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 19

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Copyright Infringement/Privacy Laws/Administrator Abuse 67.177.35.25 vs. Fvw, Pgk, Exabit, Kebron, and Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters

Administrator Fvw and the users listed above have been engaging in abuse of another user, Gadugi. Gadugi is currently blocked from the site by Fvw. I am his wife and he asked me to post this request here due to continued administrative abuse by user Fvw reverting edits and enforcing the behavior of the named users. These users have been posting false information about Mr. Merkey at page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey, and in fact, they created the page solely for the purpose of using wikipedia as a platform for libel and personal attacks of Mr. Merkey. They have also taken Mr. Merkey's copyrighted content from his website merkeylaw.com and posted it to this site and are linking to illegal mirrors of the content on the internet which are in the UK and distriuting Mr. Merkey's copyrighted materials from this site. Mr. Merkey has been harrassed by these people for almost a year on various websites, and he believes them to be, Alan P. Petrofsky, Simon G. Best, Andre Hedrick, Russ Mossman, Rik Van Reil, and other associates of Linus Torvalds of the Linux Community. These users also posted a notice linking Mr. Merkey to his anonymous identity Gadugi which violates wikipedia policies. Mr. Merkey asks that his copyrighted materials and links to them be removed from this site and the notice disclosing his identity be removed from the site as it violates US privacy laws and he did not give wikipedia permission to disclose his identity. Mr. Merkey also asks that the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey be deleted from this website as it changes every 5 minutes and is clearly just some sort of platform for internet libel, harassment, and stalking. Were the article accurate, Mr. Merkey would not object, but the article is simply propoganda for the Linux Community, and this clearly does not fall within wikipedias mission to bring and provide accurate content to the world.

Hello Mr. Merkey's wife who refers to him as Mr. Merkey. If you want the page deleted, nominate it at AfD. If this AfD fails (or if you have, and it did) then its because the community chooses it to stay. We do not like legal threats, not even in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. This is definitely not something to mediate over. In fact, I support the block, and I think all the other mediators do too. This is pretty frivolous and I doubt any parties would agree to mediation. You should list this at the arbcom, where chances are they'll reject it. Don't make this another Ashida Kim. Mediation is not the right place to take this. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Rejected

Topic: Indo-Pak relations

Sorry, this is "out of format", but I was approached directly at here and replied at at there.

Basically, Idleguy is asking for help dealing with a.n.o.n.y.m on articles dealing with the India-Pakistan relationship. Uncle Ed 13:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a level three heading. Now I know you suggested Improv or SlimVirgin do it, but Improv has a case, and SlimVirgin isn't a mediator (though of course she can mediate if she wants). Ed Poor, you're the only active mediator who's not busy, so I'll be assigning you your own case ;-) R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, Ed is on vacation. Let me look at this a bit.. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at User talk:SlimVirgin to see if she'd like to take it... R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state also that although Sam Korn and Essjay don't have cases, I would prefer not to assign them a case right now as Sam Korn is going on vacation (not the wiki kind, though that comes with it I guess...) soon and Essjay is running something at WP:ESP right now. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin actually accepted, but those who needed mediating seemed to have settled it. So I'll archive and recommend she join us if she pleases... R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FRCP11 and Whitfield Larrabee

There's a revert war on the Bill Frist page. Two RFCs resulted in a 3-1 consensus, but a single editor, User:Whitfield Larrabee, alone in the minority, is inappropriately reverting the agreed-upon rewrites to his preferred characterizations; refusing to address criticism on the talk page; insulting those who disagree with his edits as "sock puppets" and "censors" and "pushing an agenda", and inappropriately placing NPOV tags. -- FRCP11 03:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have Sasquatch look over this... R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think this is a valid request and will be glad to see what we can do. Sasquatcht|c 03:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)--Whitfield Larrabee 21:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation will begin pending Witfield Larrabee's acceptance. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to mediate the matter. I do not know how one begins a mediation. --Whitfield Larrabee 21:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Options from here on in

Well, right now we can continue mediation on the talk page of this sub page or we can move it over to a private channel such as e-mail of IRC. Let's decide on that quickly before we clog up the page over here. Seening the nature of the dispute, I would suggest we just move it over to the talk page as to avoid clogging up WP:RFM (as I have done). If either of you feels more comfortable with e-mail, I think it is a viable option as well. Sasquatcht|c 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has closed pending User:Whitfield Larrabee and User:FRCP11 agreement in that they will put this issue past them and that Mr. Larrabee will take more policy into consideration as well as FRCP11 possibly re-evaluating if the phrases really affect POV that much even if they are fact (I think). Hence, hopefully, these two will get along better in the future =) Sasquatcht|c 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over style in Star Wars articles

Users involved:

User:A Link to the Past
User:clawson
User:Copperchair
User:Philwelch
User:The Wookieepedian (formerly User:Adamwankenobi)

Involved articles:

These articles (and possibly others I'm not aware of) are in a near-continuous state of reversion, over a handful of stylistic arguments. There may be more arguments going on I'm not aware of, but the primary ones seem to be a dispute over who should be credited in the cast section (and how it should be ordered and how Denis Lawson should be credited), and which navbox template should be used. (Other revert wars I've spotted include the inclusion/removal of a Wikibooks link and whether or not certain fansite links should be included.)

As part of the disputes, there has been quite a bit of harsh language exchanged (e.g. the entirety of Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back#Wedge Antilles: Dennis Lawson (as Denis Lawson)), as well as several users omitting or falsifying edit summaries and numerous 3RR violations.

The RFC currently ongoing against User:Copperchair is also related to this dispute.

(I apologize for any omissions; I'm an outsider to this dispute, and may have missed out on some salient points.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, huge dispute. I'll give this to Uncle Ed, awaiting his acceptance. As an injunction may I suggest you guys refrain from editing those pages over stylistic things?. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Philwelch and I are in dispute over the content of the two templates I added to the list. The Wookieepedian 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a silly revert war over whether the line "also known as TPM" should be included in the lead section of The Phantom Menace (and similar lines in other film articles). I would be more involved in these articles but the constant bickering and revert wars have discouraged me from participating, so I've stepped back and been merely observing for the most part over the past month. Star Wars fans can be so fickle... Coffee 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance by members involved

The Wookieepedian 00:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copperchair 00:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC

Decline

I respectfully decline to be involved in this mediation. As the RfC against Copperchair demonstrates, Copperchair is a continual problem editor and a serious user conduct problem. Put simply, I do not negotiate with trolls. It is useless to mediate with Copperchair when he continually ignores consensus, lies, fabricates edit summaries, and refuses to follow agreements that he makes. I do not have the patience to deal with that kind of user, nor do I have the capacity of self-deception required to pretend that he is a good-faith contributor who I can go into mediation with. Until the user conduct issue is settled, there is no point even discussing content disputes that involve him.

As a show of good faith I will remove myself from the editing disputes under question here for the duration of the mediation—that is, so long as Wookie, Clawson, and Link refrain from participating in these editing disputes as well. Copperchair has already broken the injunction, but that is normal behavior for him and I will not bother to revert it.

— Phil Welch 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If you want to contact me about this, save me the time and post it on my [[latest talk archive instead of my talk page, because I'm just going to move it over there without responding anyway. — Phil Welch 05:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since signing this RfM, Copperchair has done nothing but continue with his old behaviour. I'm therefore withdrawing my support for it. I assumed good faith on his part, but it appears that faith was misplaced. Until Copperchair demonstrates good faith and a little more maturity, I will not be involved in a mediation with him.--chris.lawson 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment

I declare this case dropped. All those involved have pulled out (cept for the wookieepedian and copperchair, but this won't go anywhere with the other three involved not interested) and this is basically just harboring attacks and complaints against Copperchair. If its this serious and you're this passionately against him, file an RfAr. Complaining about him without being willing to enter mediation won't go anywhere otherwise, as the goal of mediation is to get you all happy with eachother. But since you're unwilling, this case is now dropped. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sarfatti and various admins

The object of this article created an account to dispute Wikipedia's description of him but then got blocked - and his sockpuppets got blocked too. I read about the fuss in wikien-l and called the guy on the phone. Uncle Ed 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack was blocked previously for legal threats and sending rude emails to several admins, including sending one to me apparently cursing the community. If he can behave in the future then this could be settled. --Phroziac^(talk)

17:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, contact the juriwiki-l about this. The legal team would best be aware of any discussion you might have with Sarfatti. Thanks. Anthere

I sent only a test message, because I'm not a jurywiki-l member. Please let them know I'm trying to get in touch with them. Uncle Ed 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So when did you call him exactly? Just last night, he sent harassing, threatening emails to me and several other people in the academic field in which I work (some of whom have never edited Wikipedia). He has apparently done this before to User:Hillman. Is Sarfatti now saying he will stop this behavior? --C S 20:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what is jurywiki? I'll assume this should be move to the Dropped section... R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Inedia

There needs to be a mediation over the article, Inedia.

Maprovonsha172 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on Maprovansha172's page to elaborate. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to the Breatharianism/Inedia article, not to a user named Inedia, and yeah, there's a dispute about his contributions, though I'm not sure if it merits mediation. — Omegatron 01:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The filer of this case seems to be uninterested. Moving to Dropped. R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Namgla

There needs to be a mediation over the article, Namgla.

[[User:]] 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding article Namgla for deletion, A lack of a website does not mean that the accociation does not exsist.

No, but it means that the existence of the association has not been verified, in the absence of some other indication that it exists. Robert McClenon 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

o_O I don't know what to do about this one, I'll move to dropped, and you can elaborate if you still want to persue mediation. R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?)

User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others

Request by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate of User:Researcher99. A long-term dispute in Talk:Polygamy between both users about behaivour. The matter needs mediation soonly as the controversy the topic has. User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. We'd like to solve this by mediation as is the last method we've got before mediation (there has also been a RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99). A notice has been sent to the other party --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to participate in mediation. I require the following

A clear statement from Researcher99 that he is willing to join in the mediation.
A brief statement on Talk:Polygamy allowing other users to join in the process.
A description of what will be covered in the mediation.

Nereocystis 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the 2nd item. --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to participate in the mediation. I've been watching for quite some time, and have offered assistance in the past during other heated exchanges - I am not an advocate for/against either user and would be happy to ~~act as mediator. You guys set up the rules and I'll participate or mediate - but would like to be involved~~ offer assistance. -Visorstuff 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only official mediators (if you like to join the Mediation Committe or find out more about it, take a round WP:MC) can mediate, but anyone can participate if the parties agree. I reccommend you to contact them directly and/or the mediator (until now, no mediator has responded this). --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification - didn't notice what page I was on, I was not aware this was "official" at this point (guess I should look at the page title, huh), was hoping to assist in mediating on an "unofficial" basis. I do think that Tom AKA Hawstom did a good job previously in cooling these two off. I do think they need to forget their past interactions and be more forgiving of each other. Both are very rough toward other editors on other editing pages as well, but I think the mediation needs to focus on the current disputes. -Visorstuff 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am gladly following the guidance of my AMA, Neigel von Teighen. Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant. I am so glad to have found an AMA, whose guidance is what I am following. - Researcher 23:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want the mediation to focus on determining the content of the Polygamy article. I am willing to forget the past interactions, if we can work toward fixing the article. Nereocystis 00:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to participate in this mediation and work towards making the Polygamy article more presentable, which is why I joined the discussions in the first place. I have been involved in the discussion for the past month and it seems to me that the best course of action would be to start with a blank slate. I feel like the ongoing argument has only served to scare away other potential editors who don't want to me dragged into this mess.-Kewp 07:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reword my statement a little bit. I am interested in getting to a discussion of the article quickly. While I strongly prefer to start with a blank slate, I'll listen to the mediator's suggestion here. Researcher99 has previously refused to discuss the article without discussing the past. If the mediator believes that discussing the past is the best option, I'm willing to go along with it.Nereocystis 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask any Mediator to note that this RfM request was made by AMA, Neigel von Teighen. In it, Neigel von Teighen clearly specified the intent and basis of this RfM, saying, User Researcher wants to defend himself of what he and I as his official AMA advocate consider to be abusive comments and POV edits. For the purpose of clarity, I repeat even more concisely what I said above, Any Mediation that does not address the abuses I have been receiving as far back as April/May is irrelevant.

In fact, such an attempt to not allow those abuses to be addressed is exactly another example of one of the abuse patterns for which the Mediation is being sought: agressively circumventing existing situations already in motion into distractions and directions not approved or agreed, "running right over me." Nereocystis aggressively "ran right over me" while I was still in the middle of a known ongoing dispute in May with Ghostintheshell that was not yet finished. They did it again in July by suspiciously inciting a VfD of an anti-polygamy article I tried to create (in another resolution attempt I was making), rather than just building on the new article I had started there. They aggressively circumvented another ongoing situation in August by embracing an unapproved archiving and change in the polygamy TALK page which I did not accept that interrupted an ongoing resolution discussion we were in at that time (and yet they still continue on as if the unapproved interruptive change was valid). They do it here again on this RfM by trying to circumvent the basis and intent of this RfM request. So, such an attempt to distract from this RfM's real purpose cleverly seeks to deny and hinder addressing the real core of the problem that Mediation is being sought in the first place for. These listed examples here are just a few of the many abuse examples of why this RfM has no possibility for "just forgetting the past." That's because to do that would only serve to undermine the RfM in the first place, rendering it meaningless and solving nothing. Requesting that, though, is actually another form of repeated abuse.

The AMA, Neigel von Teighen, is the one who made this RfM request on my behalf. The way the AMA presented this RfM request is the only valid basis for the Mediation request. Anything else, regardless of how many easily-found anti-polygamists can be found and exploited to add their "support" for the abuses against me as a minority editor (for not being a hostile POV anti-polygamist), is just another attempted aggressive circumvention. It's more abuse. - Researcher 23:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move this along quickly, if we can. Is there a mediator who is willing to try to resolve this problem? Nereocystis 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nereocystis, I have sent a message to the Mediation Committee chairman (User:MacGyverMagic) to alert him that the requests are increasing and nobody answers them. I hope it works! --Neigel von Teighen 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's actually start this mediation from about 10 days ago... If it pleases her, I would like Catherine to mediate this case. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she hasn't edited for four days. So instead of her I'll assign Andrevan. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How would you folks like to do this? I prefer IRC, but e-mail or a talk page would be fine as well. Andre (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use IRC very often, though I could give it a try. Otherwise, a talk page sounds good to me. We do have to determine what the mediation covers, of course. Nereocystis 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much looking forward to Mediation. Thank you, Andre. At this moment, I am waiting to hear back from Neigel von Teighen, my AMA who made this RfM request. They had been gone for the last weekend and are supposed to be back soon. As well, I am unfamiliar with IRC. It also appears that Nereocystis has yet to accept the AMA's Meditation Request according to the only standard by which it was made. So, it seems that I am still left waiting for just a little bit longer before we can finally get to proceeding. (But I can hardly wait.) Thank you very much for being ready to help. Researcher 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't always predict when I have free time for Wikipedia, which is another reason for a talk page. Also, there are many people interested in the text of the polygamy article, which makes IRC more difficult to arrange. My assumption is that our Mediator will find a way to solve both of issues, the text of the polygamy article, as well as the issues which Researcher99 wants to resolve. Nereocystis 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of using a talk page, it's a better way I think, because it doesn't need to be too much time online and also, the process will be accesible for ayone, as Nereocystis proposed. Suggestions? P.D.: It seems that I'm back... ;) --Neigel von Teighen 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing to see that the inflammatory abuse continues. The above post by Nereocystis seeks to "run right over" again, once again trying to circumvent another current situation in process (in this case this time, this RfM), by trying to distract and re-direct its focus away from the only intent and purpose of this RfM, as requested by my AMA. The above post by Nereocystis abusively implies that I somehow don't want the article to be positively done and done in NPOV, when achieving that is exactly what I want once the real problem is resolved. The real problem is that it is Nereocystis's unceasing abuse (as this example further demonstrates) which completely prevents that from actually being achieved with the article. So, the above post by Nereocystis tries to distract this RfM with a straw man argument that does not apply. I repeat, there is only one valid basis of this RfM. If Nereocystis will not accept that, then they are refusing the Mediation and frustrating my hopes for resolution yet again. Researcher 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we agree that the text of polygamy is important. Nereocystis 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, as you are an experienced mediator, you surely have an opinion or suggestion about how to do this mediation, because we're not agreeing as far I see... --Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote from Nereocystis is yet another deceptive fraud. It is one of their tactics, pretending to say words that sound "gracious" while acting and doing nothing but contradiction to their words. This is one of the abuse tactics they have used before. One example to show what I mean here is back when Nereocystis sneakily sabotaged my effort and another of my attempts for resolution with my creation of the anti-polygamy article. Contrary to building that very-newly created article, they immediately sabotaged it, and asked someone to delete it on the former anti-polygamy TALK page in a post they made on 1 July 2005 17:16. (That former TALK page has been archived here. In fact, you can read that former article's entire encounter here.) Also, Nereocystis removed the link to that anti-polygamy article so that it then had no other article linking to it. (You may read the entire important chronology about that here.) Within a few days, a very suspicious user, Spatfield, who had almost never posted, and has not posted since, then used that fact to justify calling for the Vote For Deletion. After that, when Nereocystis knew that they had collected enough easily-found anti-polygamists to completely sabotage the anti-polygamy article, they then made the same kind of fake "gracious" post, pretending as if they would like to see the VfD extended another week. I immediately pointed out the lie of that fake "graciousness." When one user was starting to see the possibility of the article's value, they misunderstood and noted the fake "graciousness." I then further explained the proof of the fakeness of the lie. Anyway, the article was finally deleted the next day. So, it is necessary to realize that these kinds of fake comments are mere deceptions. Rather than actually mean that kind of "graciousness" that they say, Nereocystis's actions prove that they do not mean such "graciousness" at all. In this case here with the above quote, if they genuinely "cared" about the article being done right, they would not be undermining and trying to circumvent just about every single effort that I make to get the article to NPOV and to work in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines, especially as they do not even know that much about the topic. So, it is necessary to understand that the above fake "graciousness" is another inflammatory act of abuse, as it is just another example of the deceptive tactics they employ. That Nereocystis is still using such tactics at this stage, combined with the fact that they have still not accepted the only one valid basis of this RfM, give me cause for despair that this Mediation will even occur or that they will ever stop their abuse. Researcher 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation begins here

Alright, guys. Talk page it is; we can do the mediation here. So let's first establish what you would specifically like to happen as a result of this mediation. What's the best case scenario for each of you? Andre (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want the mediation to include a polygamy page which we agree on. Related pages, such as group marriage, polygyny, and polyandry should also be discussed. Researcher99 wants to include editing changes back to April or so. If the mediator decides that this is a good idea, I'm willing to go along with it. However, I would like to make it fairly brief. To complicate matters, I will be out of regular Internet access starting October 19 for about 3 weeks. Keeping the discussion polite seems to be difficult. Sending email to Andre and keeping the discussion private would solve the problem. However, I think that we can handle a talk page.

If we decide to discuss the past, I would like to understand our goal. Presumably, we don't want to ban anyone. Is our hope to improve behavior in the future? Perhaps we want a list of actions which were inappropriate. We need a short list of items which should be discussed. I don't want this discussion to go on forever.

I have my list of complaints about Researcher99's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99. We can start there. Researcher99 has mentioned some of his complaints there. I'm sure that he can point us to his favorite list of complaints. Nereocystis 00:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is to happen on a talk page and not via e-mail, would it be appropriate for me and others to participate, since the discussion will be partly about the content of the polygamy article? Although the main dispute is between Nereocystis and Researcher99, it doesn't seem that discussions about the content should be limited to them and a mediator. Maybe the mediation could be two-fold: a discussion about disputed user conduct, and a discussion about the content of the article(s)--Kewp 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. If are people are interested in the conduct, I suppose they can join in. Should we create a separate page for the discussion of the article itself? Is it really possible to separate the 2 topics? Perhaps the user conduct issue will end up discussing the content as well. Nereocystis 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, as I posted in July, The problem in the current dispute is more than a simple matter regarding dispute of content. It is far much more than that. Rather, it is that Nereocystis is the problem. As I showed on this page here, when I explained how there is only one valid basis of this RfM, Nereocystis routinely abuses me with their seeking to circumvent or prevent everything I do and defiantly and simply "runs right over me" no matter what I explain or say. As all the details I provided on the outrageous Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99 (and see the TALK page there too) that Nereocystis established, there are mountains of evidence of the abuse they have heaped upon me. They have utterly destroyed the fun of my Wikipedia experience as they prevent me from doing anything to keep the content correct and accurate. It is important to note how, when I did not accept the unoffical "help" from Uriah923 in August because it was not going to address these important issues to really solve anything, Nereocystis then accused me of supposedly "refusing to resolve the problem." (To see how they continued on with that claim, please see the DIFF here, or the post itself on the RfC TALK Page, titled, Proof of Lies & Ganging Up against Researcher.) So, as I was explaining, they aggressively went to act as if Uriah923's "resolution" was valid, they kept posting their made up "re-write", and they created that obnoxious Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99 page against me. But now that an official AMA has initiated the only one valid basis of this RfM, they have still not accepted that. By their own definition as having accused me of supposedly "refusing to resolve" the problem, it now appears that they are the ones "refusing to resolve" the problem because they have still not accepted the only one valid basis of this RfM. It shows the abusive hypocrisy they impart, choosing to "run right over me" when I did not agree with an unworkable resolution possibility, and now trying to "run right over me" by trying to re-define the Mediation into a distraction and unnecessary direction even though it is they who have so far still refused only one valid basis of this RfM. Because the abuse is continuing even here, I admit, Andre, that I am despairing that Nereocystis will ever let the Mediation actually get started, much less let it succeed. Researcher 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, now you see why we need a mediator. The first step needs to be to determine the topics covered by the mediation. Can you help us with this? I'm willing to cover past behavior, but want us to also include the text of polygamy. Researcher99 is upset at me because I have suggested adding this topic. What can we do? Nereocystis 20:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, mediators aren't disciplinary in nature, nor do they have a say on what goes into an article and what stays out. We're here to help resolve disputes - but we do so by empowering you, the users. Rather than talking about past behavior and what has happened, please explain to me, without referencing diffs or old versions of pages, what you want to see happen going forward. There's no gain to be had in finger-pointing. Andre (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the problem lies. We have a number of areas where we disagree in the polygamy article. I would like to cover them one at a time (or all together). With your, I would like to have the two of us reach an agreement on the text. If we agree to discuss the text of the article, I'll start to list the items.

Researcher99 does not want to discuss the article itself until we discuss the past months of our behavior. I don't know what he expects to get out of the discussion, but he really wants to discuss the past behavior. This may be the only way out of the impasse. Thus, I am willing to have the discussion of behavior, if it leads to a discussion of the topic. Nereocystis 21:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are some points to clarify, in my opinion:

The Status Quo policy that Researcher wants to be applied is because all the relevant subsequent edits have been matter of discussion and were done without observing the Wikipedia consensus policy. Nereocystis might be right when he's saying that many valid edits will be lost with such revert, but I, personally speaking (Researcher may have another idea, though), propose to do a temporary draft article somewhere ("Polygamy/temp", for example) on the basis of the april version. Then, those valid edits could be added in that draft article and, when it gets ready, Polygamy should be replaced by the new version. Obviously, Nereocystis should write a list of which he considers to be valid edits and Researcher also, try to reach consensus and finish the article.
About discussing past behaivor: It will be helpful to do it before discussing the topic so we can see what where the mistakes made by both parties and solution that first, so the mediation can run fastly and well. --Neigel von Teighen 21:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Researcher99 will not move onward until we discuss past behavior. Really, he won't. I think that he will feel better if someone listens to him. Nereocystis 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll listen if Researcher99 wants to talk about past behavior, but what does he expect to happen? I am not going to pass judgment on who's right and who's wrong. We're here to find a solution that's acceptable for everyone, not find who is at fault for this dispute. Andre (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Neigel can help here, and find out what Researcher99 wants and explain it clearly and concisely. Nereocystis 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to resolve the topic of discussion soon. Today, if possible. That may require Researcher99 to stay focused on the discussion of the topic. Keeping the responses short would be nice. Don't discuss past abuse now; that can be discussed after we determine the topic. Nereocystis 14:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, I very much appreciate that you seek to re-empower users, which includes me. I have been dis-empowered since April, specifically because of the abuse. That is why the only one valid basis of this RfM is about abuse. It is not about content specifically, except by the consequence of the destructions to content caused by the abuse. So, yes, the content has been destroyed and needs to be fixed, but that destruction is only the result of the larger issue, the abuse. That is why it is impossible to discuss content "first" because doing so will solve nothing. At best, Nereocystis will deploy their fake "graciousness" while you are "watching," but when the "mediation" of that "content matter" is over, they will revert to the abuse because no one will be looking again. The post right above from Nereocystis provides you with overt proof right here of how they deliberarely try to "run right over me." In that post right above, they said, "Don't discuss past abuse now; that can be discussed after we determine the topic." By saying that, Nereocystis is deliberately trying to circumvent me again, trying to distract you and this RfM into "discussing" what is not actually applicable to solving the actual problem. The "topic" does not need to "be determined," as Nereocystis sneakily tries to distract, because the topic of this Mediation has already been determined by the original RfM request. It is about abuse. The Mediation request is about stopping their abuse, so that I can be empowered and may once again enjoy Wikipedia in adding NPOV content with my topical research. Nereocystis knows that and is still trying to "run right over me" by trying to distract attention away from the real problem, their abuse. Their "let's discuss content" is only a tactic to distract you and "run right over me." It is not about any supposed sincerity for any real content issues. As I have said many times, the only one valid basis of this RfM is about the abuse of Nereocystis "running right over me," circumventing just about everything I do, due to their hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda. The post right above from Nereocystis has once again proven why this RfM was made in the first place, that they "run right over me" in their abuse. It shows you that I am not trying to be "stuck on the past." Instead, it shows how the pattern of abuse continues over and over again, even up to the very last post they made. Until that abuse is dealt with, it will only continue. I simply want the abuse to stop, Wikipedia Guidelines (such as STATUS QUO) followed, and no more "running right over me." Maybe that will require Nereocystis being banned, I do not know. But "debating content" with a deliberate, repeat abuser who is not held accountable is an unproductive waste of all of our time. That is why there is only one valid basis of this RfM. I am hoping you are able to help us in Mediating that. Thanks for wanting to empower even me. Researcher 20:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, we need a really active mediator here. This isn't going anywhere.

I suggest that we drop the talk page while we are discussing the scope of the mediation. Perhaps each of us can email the mediator, without sending the email to each other. Most of the Researcher99's time is spent responding to my supposed abuse, and not answering questions from either Andre or myself.

Help. We need direction, and we need to decide on the scope, as soon as possible. Nereocystis 20:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Andrevan said in his last post , "I am not going to pass judgment on who's right and who's wrong. We're here to find a solution that's acceptable for everyone, not find who is at fault for this dispute." [1]

It doesn't matter how many times Researcher99 repeats this tired line: "there is only one valid basis for this dispute," the fact is that Researcher99 has no actual desire for mediation, because he has never assumed and probably will never assume good faith WP:AGF on the part of other users who genuinely want to improve the article and wikipedia in general. Researcher99's only contributions [2] to wikipedia have been on the polygamy and occasionally group marriage articles. He has held them hostage for months, cluttering the talk pages with increasingly long, repetitive posts filled with wild accusations (for example, [3]) and a few incredibly abusive statements (most notably ([4] when Researcher99, this time, was refusing mediation). Now Researcher 99 is suggesting that Nereocystis be banned. [5]. I'm not sure what is the point of this post, because I know that Andrevan said that "we are not here to find who is at fault for this dispute." However, I'm pretty sure that this mediation will end up like the other informal mediations involving Researcher99 in the past, and I think this is quite clear from his posts, namely, he is not interested in genuinely resolving this issue with other users as he has made it clear that he does not want to discuss the contents of the polygamy article in this mediation. My goal here is not to create additional problems in this already difficult situation, but Researcher99's disingenuous posts are nothing but counterproductive. I'm sorry about the length of this post, I am very frustrated about this entire issue. thanks --Kewp 04:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 questions for Researcher99:

As Andre asked: What does Researcher99 expect to happen?
Will Researcher99 refused to participate in the mediation if it includes a discussion of the content of polygamy?

Nereocystis 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher99, I don't think you understand how mediation works and what it does. If you're interested in banning users or holding them accountable for their past actions, please seek arbitration instead. I do not have the authority to do this in the context of a mediation. Please think about what you want to happen. What would you like Nereocystis to change about his behavior? What specifically should be the outcome of all our deliberation? Andre (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Researcher99 refuses to join in a discussion of the polygamy article. If this is true, then this mediation has failed, and we have to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration. I'll work on a submission to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Other suggestions are welcome. I don't look forward to this process. If Researcher99 changes his mind, we could still try mediation. Nereocystis 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher99's AMA filed an arbitration against me Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Abuses on Polygamy article. I responded in kind Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Researcher99 on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages. Researcher99 didn't formally withdraw from the mediation, but it appears that he has, once again, decided not to discuss the content. Nereocystis 15:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, thank you for your assistance. I have been following my AMA, Neigel von Teighen's guidance, as they are the one who initiated and created the only one valid basis of this RfM.

As I have said since May, back when Nereocystis was coming "back" to the polygamy article at the exact same time that their lookalike Ghostintheshell stopped their abusive posting altogether, I have always been wanting the content of the articles to be completed, but according to the STATUS QUO Wikipedia Guidelines. Instead, they so destroyed the article and have so extensively conspired all these forms of abuse against me to perpetually prevent those Wikipedia Guidelines from ever being followed. So, for them to say that I do not want to get the polygamy (and related) articles done or that I want to hold it hostage is a lie that is untrue as far back as the beginning of this whole abusive ordeal. Yet that is not the only lie here.

I was gone for the weekend and had computer problems yesterday, but when I come back, I see that once again, Nereocystis has acted extremely aggressively as they have regularly done in the past. Coming back today, I see that Nereocystis is ganging up with their anti-polygamist comrade Kewp, to again make the obvious lie again to say that I somehow "refused mediation." (They were both shown to have made that same lie together before in unison on the TALK page of the RfC made against me, as shown here.) In addition to the lie on this page here, it is also a great hypocrisy to so aggressively act to make that lie when even Nereocystis has posted on this TALK page saying that they might not always be able to be here.

It is impossible to rationally say that I am the one who "refused mediation" when it is they who are refusing it. Yet, they do it here and on the RfC TALK page. Once again, this shows how they completely "run right over me," no matter how many times I say something. Here is the list of times that I have made it clear what this RfM is about.

23:47, 14 September 2005 - (→User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others - I am following my AMA's guidance)

23:43, 16 September 2005 - (→User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others - The AMA is the one who made the RfM request here.)

19:33, 27 September 2005 - (→User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others)

23:54, 27 September 2005 - (→User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others)

19:44, 29 September 2005 - (Nereocystis's fake "graciousness" is just more abuse)

20:32, 29 September 2005 - (the issue is not about content, but about ending the non-stop abuse)

20:03, 30 September 2005 - (Nereocystis's last post proves why this RfM is only about resolving the abuse problem)

This proves my point again, how they gang up and "run right over me." Purposely ignoring that I had said that point seven times, they instead game the systyem to invent the lie of turning their own refusal to accept the only one valid basis of this RfM into somehow being a demonstration of ME supposedly "refusing mediation!" This is exactly the kind of abuse which needs to be stopped.

Now, that I am back, I see that my AMA has initiated arbitration. So, unless my AMA guides me otherwise, I see that I must now direct my attention there, even though I am still open to participating here. I just want the abuse to end and the polygamy (etc) article to be filled with NPOV accuracy. Researcher 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the questions, Researcher99:

What do you expect to happen in this mediation?
Do you refuse to participate in the mediation if it includes a discussion of the content of polygamy?

Nereocystis 19:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher99, you're the one being uncooperative. Mediation isn't about laying blame. Andre (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, I have only been following my AMA's guidance when they created this RfM in the first place. There was only one valid basis for this RfM, to deal with the abuse. As you know, I have now said that more than seven times. If no one else agrees to that RfM request as it was requested, then they are the ones being uncooperative and refusing this RfM. I admit that I do not know all the ins and outs of the procedures here. Maybe Arbitration is the right place for this issue. I must repeat, though, I have never had a problem with dealing with content, as long as the STATUS QUO policy is followed. The abuse is what has prevented that. Even my AMA proposed the STATUS QUO here and that has still been ignored. I am only trying to get to the real resolution of the problem. Truthfully, I am not being uncooperative. Are you able to work with me in this too and with what this RfM is really about? I still have to go make a statement in the Arbitration page soon, and I am running out of time today. Researcher 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA stands for Association of Members' Advocates - Neigel isn't an association, he's an AMA member or AMA advocate.
What exactly is the STATUS QUO policy you keep referring to?
I have asked you several times above - what do you expect to happen? What is your purpose? What would you like Nereocystis to change about his behavior? Mediation isn't a place for laying blame, it's for effecting change. Your responses have been nothing but allegations of abuse. Andre (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, as no activity in the last three months. If parties wish to reopen, please contact the mediator. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony, et al. regarding content/dispute status of global city article, et al.

Users involved

Nixer
E Pluribus Anthony
Marskell
potentially, other users who have commented on global city pages in former/recent discussions

Summary

In recent history, the global city article – and related topic – has been a hotbed of subjective editions and choices; some have been in disagreement with the primary cited reference, the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) list (a published source), but also with other cited references.

Beginning 27 September 2005, Nixer began providing notional summary argumentation about why numerous ex-Soviet cities ranked as they did in this report/article and that there was a discontinuity between the article summary/definition and the GaWC list. E Pluribus Anthony, functioning as an amicus curiae cited differing examples/interpretations ad nauseum, and highlighted the clear distinction between the article proper and the GaWC list. E Pluribus Anthony and Marskell have indicated empathy and a willingness to alter the article appropriately (including addition of different sections and appropriate tables) contingent on citation of relevant information and sources and subsequent rationalisation.

Nixer has failed to do this as of yet, despite repeated requests and repeated reminders of recently stated information/rationale. Nixer continues to add dispute resolution tags to the article inappropriately, i.e., by only providing argumentation (not citations/evidence) substantiating this position. E Pluribus Anthony, et al. have reverted these tags, but cannot do so perpetually.

Nixer then proceeded to add a table segregating global-city related criteria, a la transport page, without discussion or indicating sources. This was removed pending source provision and cautions were expressed about original research.

Moreover and later (perhaps cognizant of my residency in Toronto), Nixer has made minor retaliatory editions to the Toronto article and information template, relating to global city notation. E Pluribus Anthony has restored original text on numerous occasions, pending rationalisation.

Request for mediation and guidance requested by author; specifically regarding (but not limited to):

(1) prohibition of substantial editions and inclusion of POV tags to global city article by Nixer, contingent upon provision of authoritative, relevant citations;

(2) prohibition of retaliatory edits by Nixer to Toronto article;

(3) arbitration of said issue.

Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for arbitration, or an offer to enter into Mediation? Uncle Ed 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a request for mediation: I have made various contributions here and there and I've tried to be as objective as possible regarding this; to no avail. An arbitration (from what I gather) is feasible if a mediation fails and is the highest 'escalation', right? I'd like to settle this without resorting to arbitration, but that may be necessary. In any event, this needs to be resolved somehow. Your guidance is appreciated. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 00:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see Catherine is back, I'd like her to take this case. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Fine with me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I accept. Does Nixer agree to mediation? — Catherine\^talk 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Great! I don't know if he will accept mediation, though. I mentioned the prospect if things could not be resolved alternatively. And as I've been involved in this from the get-go as of late – and in the spirit of true mediation – can you ask him? :) And what if he does not accept? In any event, I appreciate your assistance. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer's comments

First, because the article is being disputed, I think, the dispute tag should exist in the article until the conclusion. Second, because of contraversity between the introduction and the GaWC rating, I suggested to alter the article different ways:

1. Remove the existing introduction and leave the GaWC rating only.

2. Remove the GaWC rating and leave a link to it only.

3. Add some other ratings such as cost of life rating, number of billionaires living in the city or rating of metro area.

4. Add a table to the article, indicating different parameters of a city or place of the city in diffeent ratings.

So, all of my suggestions were refused and my edits were reverted.

Also, I should note that there is another user Vlad Patryshev, who agreed the article is biased and is not objective. He voted for complete deletion of the article from Wikipedia. According to his opinion, the GaWC list is an insult for Wikipedia.--Nixer 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell's comments

First, I broadly second EP's requests and comments.

I'd suggest that tags can't be unilateral and that it doesn't belong on this page. Nixer has essentially created the controversy.

As for points 1 and 2—seperating the intro and the GaWC info—I disagree. We make clear that GaWC is a starting point to view the topic and not synonomous with Global City itself. The info is not an "insult to Wikipedia." It's a perfectly respectable primary source which dovetails with what we want to describe in this article.

Points 3 and 4: yes, add other information but source it. You were reverted for this reason. Your suggestions were not refused, your edits were. Marskell 20:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine's comments

Firstly, thank you for accepting me as mediator, and for refraining from editing this article while mediation is in progress. I have moved the "responses" from this section to Talk:Global city/Mediation, where I will continue this discussion. When online, I can also be reached by email and on the main wikipedia IRC channel (although I don't watch it continuously so you may need to ping me).

I choose not to protect the article at this point -- I trust you both to work together while we try to find a good solution to your differences. I think the "globalize" tag should remain while we work this out (although it technically belongs on the talk page, it won't do any harm there for a short time).

Marskell, I appreciate your comments here and on the talk page, and your attempts at perspective, but I believe a mediation is most fruitful between two people; you are welcome to follow along, but unless your disagreement is significantly different from EPA's, I would ask that you sit on the sidelines, and hold off from making edits yourself for a few days. (Also, try to be more professional in your edit summaries, please? :)

Thank you, — Catherine\^talk 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann

Gadugi and the Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey page

I need a mediator to review the links to the merkeylaw mirror sites contained in this page. This article is about me so its inappropriate for me to edit the article or post tags. I have tried arbcom as well, but I had to withdraw and back away from the legal issues which I have done. I am now trying to be a "good Jeff" and play nice with the rules. I ask for a mediator to review "fair use" guidelines and determine whether or not the links should be removed. I have posted comments about the links to offsite copyrighted materials to Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. I would prefer the links be removed as they appear to not conform to WP policies about fair use, but since the article is about me, I am hardly a disinterested or impartial party. Can someone review this for me and let me know if this does or does not confirm to WP policies. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, I just need an impartial person to look at this and then I'll shut up about it.

Thanks

Gadugi 21:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Merkey for actually being a bit more mature and filing a decent RfM, I'll look who to assign this to as soon as I'm done moving stuff aroud. R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see Wikipedia:Mediation#What mediators are not. Specifically private investigators. Head on down to WP:RFC and file an RfC under the article section. Thanks Gadugi, R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rspeer in dispute with User:Fahrenheit451

User:Fahrenheit451 and I have had a dispute since March about the content of Borda count and related voting system articles, at varying levels of hostility. He has agreed to mediation. RSpeer 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll assign Improv to this one. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Improv has left a note on your talk pages to email him. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation was successfully concluded in October 2005. --Fahrenheit451 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:FRCP11 and User:Whitfield Larrabee

I thought this had been resolved, but I continue to have problems with User:Whitfield Larrabee, who is engaging in revert wars and personal attacks. I need a neutral third party to explain to him principles of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. I've been trying to be very reasonable on the tort reform article, but every edit is attacked on personal grounds, without any effort to respond to my extensive efforts to explain my edits. I feel harassed, and am beginning to doubt the other editor's good faith. See Talk:Tort reform#think tank funding (revert war and violation of WP:CITE); Talk:Tort reform#Junk science (personal attack and misunderstanding of NPOV); Talk:Tort reform#Right Wing Skewing Problems With The Article and Proposed Permanant Point of View Tag (personal attack and misunderstanding of NPOV). I also mildly suspect the use of a sock puppet; see Talk:Tort reform#Liberal supporters of tort reform and User:70.19.153.85. Many thanks. -- FRCP11 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whitfield Larrabee is now putting personal attacks in the tort reform article itself, and using the sock puppet 68.239.30.138. Compare also this edit with this one, making the same personal attacks and misspellings. Is this appropriate under Wikipedia? How do I get an administrator to step in? -- FRCP11 23:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want mediation, this is the right place. If you think Whitfield Larrabee should be blocked or otherwise, go file an RfC. R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've given all the advice I could have to both parties. I can try to talk to you two again but a new conflict always seems to pop up. Anyways, I'll continue to watch Mr. Larrabee and warn him to be civil. Sasquatcht|c 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:TDC; User:Duk; User:Ed Poor vs. User:travb; User:165.247.208.115; User:Sasquatch

This argument started on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation

User:Ed Poor's bias

User:Ed Poor, a mediator here, was also active in the editing of Winter Soldier Investigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Ed_Poor.27s_Additions

So since he is prejudice in this case, at your discretion, I submit that he should be withdrawn from deciding this case as a moderator. A reasonable observer would question his impartiality.

Past history

User:Cecropia set up a October_2004_protection because of User:TDC and user User:SEWilco:

"This article and Vietnam Veterans Against the War are the subject of an edit war between one or two logged-in users (I see User:TDC and User:SEWilco) and a series of anonymous IPs, which I have good reason to suspect are the same person or coordinated persons."

Full text of October 2004 protection message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive1#October_2004_protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#October_2004_protection

(The article had been protected before in July 2004, but from what I understand, none of the parties in this group were involved)

On 10 Feb 2005 User:AllyUnion unprotected the site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Unprotected

On 13:00, 25 August 2005 User:Rd232 again protected the site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Page_protect_.28again.29

On 17:35, 13 September 2005 User:Tony SidawayTalk unprotected the site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive2#Page_protect_.28again.29

Current confrontation

User:TDC on October 20, deleted large portions of the article. 'Starting the newest revert war.

User:TDC started the revert war.

User:TDC,User:Duk and User:165.247.208.115 then got into a revert war.

I, User:travb, then erased many of the "superfluous use of direct quotations" (the reason why User:TDC erased many of the quotes) and footnoted many of the alledged copyright violations.

User:Duk, User:TDC friend then erased ALL of the content, using the copyright violation template.

User:TDC then reported User:165.247.208.115 to the a 3RR[6]

User:Sasquatch, who took on the 3RR alegation, decided to revert the text back to the original with a warning:

Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it. There's a reason why it's called edit this page. Just because one sentence in a paragraph is copied, don't delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". The only case where you should remove ALL content is if the entire thing is a clear and cut copyright violation. Also, if you take an idea and rewrite it (i.e. put some creative effort into it) then it is no longer a CP. The next time you observe a CP, do not just delete it right away. Read it and see if there's a better way to summarise it and then fix it. Deleting it is a last resort. I'm pretty sure the policy on this is very clear. Remember: don't just go around deleting stuff. That's counter-productive to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish in the long run (i.e. store as much encyclopedic information as possible). Sasquatcht|c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#Removing_content_versus_fixing_content

User:Sasquatch is an unbiased person who has never added any content to the Winter Soldier Investigation, he was the person who assigned himself to the 3RR case that User:TDC filed.[7]

User:Ed Poor, was invited to join this current revert war by User:Duk [8]

Despite what User:Sasquatch had decided:

"Alrihgt, here is my last plea. Do not remove content just because it appears to be mostly comment. Rather, use your brain, read it thouroughly and edit it."

After User:Sasquatch recommendation, User:Ed Poor then deleted all 9 pages, and started over from scratch. This made User:Duk happy.[9]

I will now revert the page back to User:Sasquatch original edit, with the 9 pages entact.

Further information

Can someone lock this page once again, where User:Sasquatch left it, while this current dispute is mediated/resolved?

Please also read the 3RR allegation of User:TDC.

I have found that User:TDC has:

been blocked several times (at least 4 that I am aware of), for periods of 48 hours,
has deleted large portions of articles, and
has been very beligerent when administrators block him.Travb 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch's Note

i would hardly put Uncle Ed on a side. If anything, I think he's more neutral than me. He just got caught in the crossfire and didn't know what to do so he tried to comprimise. But I would not put myself in this mediation unless all parties feel it is absolutely nessacery. I think this dispute was started long before Edmund and Edmond (that's me) got involved. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Sasquatcht|c 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand--I actually think that Uncle Ed is more apt to support the views of TDC and duk. i dont know, you know ed better than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

Rehashed

I have completely rehashed the offending paragraphs and so there really shouldn't be a problem anymore. I will continue to monitor any problems that may arise. Sasquatcht|c 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you t|c for your support of fair use. Ed also actually said he supported fair use up to "300 words", I am against any site of any politcal stripe being completly erased. I am brand new to the Winter Soldier Investigation wikisite, but the problem itself has been going on for over a year. Hopefully your continued monitoring will avoid having Winter Soldier Investigation be protected again by an administrator.

I agree 100% with your comments on my talk page:

"Rewriting is better, in my opinion, because you could have avoided all the uglinesses that just happened. Anyways, I rewrote the paragraphs there should be no problem with it not. This should have been done before all this started."

As mentioned before, I added a new wikiquote page and started to add footnotes to the page before Duk and TDC started putting a copyright violation on the page.

You are right, it really didnt have to happen this way.--Travb 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]