Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header

Please list new requests at the top of the section 'to be accepted by committee'. Use LEVEL THREE HEADERS (===). A mediator from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Active will be assigned to take care of your case. purge the cache

Depleted uranium

There has been a protracted discussion as to the quality of the references in the section on health effects. The issue is the subject of an ongoing RfC which is going nowhere. See:[1] Both Lcolson and DTC along with myself have suggested that we try this route. The results of multiple studies have been cherry-picked for supporting information to support a POV; contrary information in the same studies is ignored, as are studies refuting the selected conclusion. Furthermore, junk science and news articles have been given the same weight as reports from scholarly sources.

As the other party to the requested mediation, I disagree. I have provided more than 30 peer-reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature, and have explained in detail how they change over time. My detractors have produced no recent peer-reviewed studies supporting any of their claims. There have been no credible allegations of POV, and many personal attacks against me, while I have behaved with decorum. The baseless allegations of original research are particularly absurd, because all my claims have been sourced. I ask the mediator to review the most recent archive along with Talk:Depleted uranium itself. Thank you. --James S. 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a mediator, hopefully with some relevant background, that will be willing to actually take the time to look at the sources to see if they are reliable, accepted in the scientific community, and see what they actually say and compare this to what it is claimed that they say. This has been the crux of the arguments from day one on this page, and there have been many.--DV8 2XL 20:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With that part I agree wholeheartedly. I would also like to point out that after a 3RR ban, I was unbanned after pleading that I was reverting what amounted to vandalism: deletion of several paragraphs containing two dozen sources, most peer-reviewed, and insertion of two studies from the 1990s with no indication of their dates or of the significance of their dates. I welcome moderator questions on my talk page. Thanks again. --James S. 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the claims we are making are on the quality and relevance of your sources. Demanding that we supply counter evidence in the form of other citations is, at this stage patently absurd. We are making no claims counter to yours, only that you use proper sources and use them correctly. --DV8 2XL 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sources have been mostly peer-reviewed. I have already addressed all the questions of relevance raised. I added a list of 18 news stories to the talk page when I was accused of bias and original research; those are not cited in the main article. --James S. 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out to you already that peer-review is not a guarantee of truth. A peer-review only means that experts in the field of study, have provided an objective assessment of the manuscript's quality. Thus it means the work meets the minimum requirements, not that alleged statements of fact or conclusions drawn from them have been checked. The issues in question cannot be adequately addressed by simply asserting that the sources have been peer-reviewed, as our contention is that you have used the wrong sources, or used them improperly. In any case several of the citations in the Health concerns section of the article, (the section in question,) do not meet the generally accepted standards for peer-reviewed sources.--DV8 2XL 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, does that not apply to any peer-reviewed study about anything? I suspect that reviewers in medicine do not generally check statements of fact; this is not a specific weakness in the sources cited by Nrcprm2026, nor should it cast partcular doubt on those sources. On the second point, I expect that Nrcprm2026 will respond to your claims of inadequately reviewed sources in due course. I will read the section in question, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment regarding the specific sources until he has stated his opinions. -- Pakaran 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it applies to all peer-reviewed research; I am not raising this to criticize the references. I am making the point that valid questions about the contents of those sources cannot be dismissed because they have gone through the process. --DV8 2XL 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to any of these five moderators: Andrevan, Asbestos, Improv, Redwolf24, or Sasquatch, based on my perception of the likelihood that they will be able to understand the technical issues involved. I would agree to private email, IRC, or OnWiki mediation, at the agreed-upon mediator's preference. --James S. 00:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not familiar with any of these folks, thus I have no preference. However I would prefer to conduct this in an open and transparent forum. --DV8 2XL 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James has asked me to serve as an advocate. If mediation is conducted by email, I can be reached at windrunner at gmail dot com. -- Pakaran 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakaran has agreed to act as my advocate. I asked him because he has a clear interest in related topics, and I was worried about the 3-against-1 numbers of the mediation request, and because I may be away from Wikipedia for 100 hours of new client work over the next two weeks.

The RfM page is for brief comments. I have replaced Lcolson's lengthy text which appears in duplicate here on the DU talk page with this text. --James S. 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I don't want to make this look like a linching ether. Also this has gone on for so long (from my perspective) that a few weeks more won't make a difference, and we all have other responsiblites --DV8 2XL 03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we can all be civil and give each other time for comments. I have a research project that my future hinges on that will take the majority of my time starting with the new semester (starts this upcoming Tuesday, after MLK Day), but I'll try to check in from time to time. Lcolson 03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized bicycle, Pedelec, Electric Bicycle, Moped, Motorcycle, Timeline of motorized bicycle history

It is argued according to several users that most articles, such as pedelec, electric bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, motor assisted bicycle are POV forks to the article motorized bicycle. I do not agree and base this on the precences of truck, SUV and Car all being a type of automobile. We have attempted to partake in discusion but this is mostly through deletion process because user:JzG nominates this articles for deletion right away believing they are POV Forks. user:woohookitty may also be involved. To plague the situation even more, there is debates on wheter we can include certain pictures into the article of motorized bicycle. We have attempted to resolve these issues by talking on his user page but we still face the same old. Non inclusion of this information, according to me, though perhaps it may be neglibable, as JzG has stated (ie.: CCM bicycle), is a type of POV. JzG has indicated that that neglible things shouldn't be included. Since there is no importance add to the relevance of the information (from my source) it is obvious we will not be able state this vehicles relevance. However, we should not be distracted from the main issue. That is, the idea of no longer being able to develop other, though closelly related, different articles. A few months ago, I have even asked JzG if he could go into mediation and all he said was... "why?" So essential this mediation is for "POV Forking", deletionism and user conduct in regards to expanding articles. --CyclePat 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object vigorously here. You need to start with a request for comment first here, Pat. And as far as I know, mediation isn't done like this. Mediation is typically done on one article at once, not 6. Please follow procedure. For User conduct issues, it's typically request for comment and then request for arbitration if the request for comment fails. For articles, it's typically request for comment and then request for mediation. And it's one at a time, not 6. Pick one of the articles and start the RfC on it. Or open a RfC on user conduct. You don't *start* with mediation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that will lead to nowhere and we will be faced with practically the same issues. That is, a type of discussion in between each other that of witch I or you will get frustrated and after many days of discusion we won't want to continue on until maybe 2 weeks from now when the issue come up again. Anyway, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues show the current issue about the CCM photo, and [[2]], which was there from Nov 25 demonstrates some other requests, that we never really resolved. (the underlying issue). You, Woohookitty also added request on merger of electric bicycle to motorized bicycle (and removed it fairly quickly... ironically I was gone during those 2 days)... This demonstrates but a few requests that where added. I also must say that I agree with a comment someone once indicated RFCs_do_not_work_because_nobody_seems_to_care. As a user for approximatelly 3 month and 1/2 (since september 27) I considere myself new. (That of course until I started learning the hard ball way with these guys!) I now consider myself novice. I also consider actions by these individuals as being of poor taste and sometimes lacking friendlyness. (Actually, I should more likely say conspiritorial.) Woohookitty has clearly said he doesn't like me (even though he has later on said he likes me). As for JzG, I am indeferent and this is simply because of this dispute. What can we do with all these vehicles? (I mean even user:JzG states on his user page that "motorized bicycle" is a "Hopelessly incomplete and out of date Wiki interest section." --CyclePat 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Pat has tried some of the other steps per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, the reason he is here is essentially because at each stage he has not got the answer he wants. Perhaps the time has come for him to sit back and reflect on why that is. In the latest issue, that of forking Pedelec, Pat failed to convince on AfD, has thus far failed to convince on DRV and is now here - and note that it is very unusual to start one process while another is still running, as Pat is doing here. Fundamentally then, the problem is simply that Pat never gives up.

To address the question directly, I know of no suggestion that motorcycle or moped are forks of anything, so perhaps Pat can cite diffs to support that assertion. That Pedelec was a fork has been endorsed at AfD and appears to be endorsed at DRV, too, based in part on the real point at issue which is the months-old dispute over electric bicycle. That article's Talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric bicycle between them look to me a lot like forking, which was the judgment of two admins at the time, and more to the point the discussions back then are such that Pat cannot help but know that creating a separate article for electric bicycles by another name, absent that the existing section in motorized biycle grows too big, is simply not on. Pat claimed first that this was a port from the German (unnecessary since de:Pedelec already links to motorized bicycle and vice versa) and then a "spin-out" (which would imply at least some attempt to incorporate the content into motorized bicycle, no such attempt being in evidence). Only one person involved in these disputes has a vested interest in electric bicycles: Pat.

Also, three things (notably a bicycle made by Canadian manufacturer CCM) were removed from motorized bicycle on the grounds that they were not demonstrably significant to the global development of the motorized bicycle. Pat accuses me of "deletionism" but the content already exists in the article for CCM (bicycle manufacturer). The next thing we know there are links in the article to Timeline of motorized bicycle history, a shiny new article created by Pat and containing three things - I bet you can't guess which three! Oh, you can. And you are right: [3]. So, I AfDd this fork (because what else would you call it?), and Pat went to the MopedArmy web forum to solicit meatpuppets. The article was saved and new contributor K-111 (talk · contribs) came along, one of those from MopedArmy, who made some great contributions and we agreed after a short while that (a) the three items were not significant, so out they went and (b) the timeline should be expanded to cover a widder canvas, which seems to be in abeyance since nobody is putting in the effort, being perhaps, too busy on other things, perhaps filing RfCs or some such. Next, a picture of the machine removed as irrelevant (the CCM Light Delivery Safety) appears in the motorized bicycle article. Out it comes, because even with a picture it is still of no demonstrable significance. We are short of pictures of the really significant things, though, so I go and find some and list some others we might want. What happens next? A gallery of motorized bicycles containing the pictures from that article and - guess what! - the machine removed as irrelevant. Another admin AfDs that, out it goes.

Am I alone in seeing a pattern here?

Now, Pat says my user page has an "incomplete and out of date" list of Wiki interests. This is true. My watchlist contains over 2,000 main space articles, some of which are being watched for vandal and spam attacks, some of which I'm researching from rare books in my possession, some are part of an ongoing arbitration concerning one person's attempt to add allegations of child rape and coverup to a prominent businessman and the global company of which he was CTO. I have said to Pat more than once that the energy he puts into irrleevancies like refactoring the talk pages of articles would be far better devoted to filling in those redlinks, which I have no doubt he could do given his knowledge. That is my fundamental problem with Pat. He has cconsumed hours of my time and his in never-ending arguments over things on which everybody but Pat apparently agrees. When he doesn't get the answer he wants, he escalates, and here we see that when that fails he escalates again. Meanwhile those redlinks are still red. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by --CyclePat 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) : Semantics aside. I know of one suggestion that motorcycle and moped are forks of something. And that is precisely this case. So perhaps JzG can cite the diffs to support that assertion. Now to make things even more confusing, I even argued at one point the validity of the information in regards to pedelec and that I believed it was a type of "trademark." According to the that of witch I kept our translation on wikinfo:pedelec, it isn't. This is getting to the point that we continuously fail to develop this article and we scare away other editors because we fail to answer the fundamental question. According to to JzG and some other editors, pedelec is considered a type of POV fork. The fundamental question I believe is: If motorized bicycle and moped are subjects of significant value to warrant their own articles, then what supports your theory that motorized bicycle and electric bicycle or pedelec do not warrant their own separate articles. No I am not the only one that believe this.[reply]

• "Yes - modern electric bikes are power assisted, but they are not mopeds. Because of this common confusion it would have been appropriate to maintain the page on power-assisted cycles, especially for the European connection." (comment by user:64.230.66.98)
• "I think merging would be a mistake. Electric bikes are a new, emerging vehicle class." (comment by user:64.230.66.98)
• "then we really should work toward branching to a page dedicated entirely to ELECTRIC bicycles" (a comment that appears to be by user:64.230.64.62 22:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Clearly people have objected even when we attempted a merger:
  • What started out as a separate page for electric bicycles has now become a re-creation of the existing moped page? This is nonsense. Electric bicycles are not mopeds. Maybe we need to start a page for electric bicycles? said user:64.230.49.232 and furthermore goes on to says "Please lets keep mopeds and electric bikes separate - they REALLY are different creatures."

But, according to everyone this is a "major" conflict of interest!!!, however:

• "The decision about whether there should be a article for electric bicycle separate from this motorized bicycle article should be made from a NPOV. The argument against based on the supposition that a non-NPOV person will take over the electric bicycle article is not an NPOV argument itself. Whether they should be separate articles should be decided independent of any considerations regarding who will be doing what if they are or are not separated. Now, it seems to me that an electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle with a separate history and completely unrelated technical issues, and, thus, warrants having its own article, period. However, any issues common to all motorized cycles should be covered in the motorized bicycle article, and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article." --user:Serge 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• another fundamental question never answered is "Are power-assisted bicycles and power-assisted cycles really separate classes of vehicles, or are they alternate names for electric or motorized bicycles, as was implied earlier? --Alynna 19:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)"
• "I think there's a valid point in here somewhere - but it's not that merging articles makes us confused about where the component parts came from and thus go. Yes, there are laws that only pertain to electric bicycles. But undoubtedly there are also laws that pertain to a wider subset of motorized bicycles. Things like that would make sense to include in this article. On the other hand, there does seem to be enough information specific to electric bicycles that I would not oppose having a separate electric bicycle article (while keeping this article and doing one of those "main article: electric bicycle" things). --Alynna 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• "...I think the decision to merge was wrong, and appears to me to have been made mostly for non-NPOV reasons having to do not with whether there should be two articles, but with what a certain person would do, sprinkled with irrelevant rationalization like , "they have similar legal positions". I too have no competing interests. Just disappointed in what has appeared to have transpired here." --Serge 07:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Further more he indicates that "Now, it seems to me that an electric bicycle is a unique type of motorized bicycle with a separate history and completely unrelated technical issues, and, thus, warrants having its own article, period. However, any issues common to all motorized cycles should be covered in the motorized bicycle article, and appropriately referenced from the electric bicycle article. --Serge 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)"
• this discussion show that some people have attempted to recreated the article (wasn't me that time either)
• I also believe that mopeds and motorized bicycle should be allowed separate articles. --Eav 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be sufficient amount of evidence to demonstrate that I am not the only one that believes this. Avoiding the subject and asking me to fill out red links is precisely what has lead us to hear. Woohookitty and Katefan from the start of the creation of the article had it set in their minds to change "electric bicycle" article name and merge to their new article called "motorized bicycle."

Furthermore, there appears to be a language bias in this article:

• this link also demonstrates our inability to comprehend the difference between these vehicles.

As for the CCM picture I think we have enough on our plate right now... but I feel this is closely related to the current issue of the triumph picture (discussed on the talk:motorized bicycle page and that of witch we have been waiting for quite a while (in the RFc). --CyclePat 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• other sources [4] --CyclePat 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the question of splitting electric bicycle from motorized bicycle (an article which emphasises the status of motorised bicycles as motor vehicles in many jurisdictions), Pat has a clear conflict of interest. See here [5] where he notes Mr. Joseph wants me to be his agent. I believe the only way I can get him out of this situation is if the judge doesn't consider this a type of motor vehicle. The merger of the two streams was settled by consensus two months ago; I can't understand why it is suddenly so urgent.

When considering the question of motorcycle and moped being forks, Pat appears to be suggesting that the existence of his assertion is evidence that such a suggestion has been made, and challenging me to provide diffs to support my assertion that he should provide diffs to support his assertion that these articles are said to be forks. Since I can't believe that Pat would actually be making such an inane request, perhaps he would care to rephrase the question in terms I can more readily understand. And while he's about it perhaps he can provide the diffs which support the assertion that motorcycle and moped are forks, and if so, of what.

When considering the question of mediation, and efforts to resolve the "disputes", the last edits to the Talk pages prior to the nominator's linking of this discussion was:

• Timeline of motorized bicycle history: December 15, 2005
• Moped: December 4, 2005
• Motorcycle: December 19, 2005
• Pedelec: Currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Pedelec
• Electric bicycle: November 6, 2005
• Motorized bicycle is the only article where discussion has been ongoing

If anyone other than Pat thinks this is a problem requiring the intervention of others I have yet to come across them or their comments. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my first comment. I was using your analogy. Reverse psychology. Of course it doesn't make sense because it's base on your "flawed" reasoning (in regards to this issue). To clarify this: the analogy goes like this. If moped and motorized bicycle deserve their own article, then the differences between pedelec and motorized bicycle make it so they should also have their own article. Seeing the similarity between these articles (that of pedelec and motorized bicycle, with that of motorized bicycle and moped). If one group of articles (such as pedelec and motorized bicycle)is a POV fork, then inherently the other (moped and motorized bicycle) should also be a fork. That is obviously not the case because Moped and motorized bicycle each have their own distinct articles (even though they are practically the same machine). The same basis would also apply of motorcycle, bicycle, etc... and probably the 100'000 thousand and more articles that currently exist. I ask that you re-read the aforementioned quotes by user:Serge. This is not a personal quest. And stating that I have a vested interest has nothing to do with NPOV. (this same irrelevant argument could be used against you to... and I think it irrelevant to the discussion) Please remain on topic, for I am not the only person that has cited this fallacy in "our" logic to merge these electric bicycle to motorized bicycle. --CyclePat 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, this was settled by consensus two months ago. Why is it suddenly important enough to bring to mediation without even talking to the other editors on the article about it first?

Also, please provide diffs where anyone has stated that moped and motorcycle are forks. If you can't, I suggest that you remove them from this request. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

The Paris article has been appropriated by Wikipedian Hardouin. The same has managed to write and rewrite over 2/3 of the page into a content filled with unreferenceable personal opinions, and is fervently protecting it against any correction through reverting, almost always to his own unchanged version. Edits have always been (well) preceded by Talk page postings, followed by a (sometimes very long) waiting periods for consensus. Seemingly the only original wikipedian contributor left to the page, Hardouin refuses to partake in any dialogue, listen to suggestions and/or change his text himself. Yet the same is always right there to revert. Won't provide factual references, even when reverting the work of an author who does. Am in the midst of a two-day revert war but call it off for mediation. Have tried WP:RFC [6] and WP:3O [7] and have also asked personally the page's original contribotors and other users to help. To no avail. So thank you if you can. THEPROMENADER 19:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (formerly User:Josefu).[reply]

PS: OnWiki (public) is fine. THEPROMENADER 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people

User:-Inanna- is promoting a pan-Turkish POV with an article that is actually quite fair and equitable towards the Turks of Turkey. Her picture inclusion depicts non-Turks as Turks just to promote some sort of inclusion of all famous figures ever affiliated with Turkey as ethnic Turks. Discussed this on the Discussion page to no avail. Thanks. Tombseye 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

User:Zapatancas has asked me to arrange mediation for our dispute over José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and sub-pages eg Zapatero and the 2004 General Election. It is very bitter between us, there are sockpuppet allegations that could do with a developer looking at them, and things have been tense for months (it began in the middle of last year) but there is willingness for mediation, SqueakBox 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Vander Plaats

I've been involved in a dispute with User: FourthAve over this article. What's happened is this: Back in November I came across the Bob Vander Plaats article using random article, and it was in my opinion a thinly-veiled attack page written by FourthAge (see first version of page). I whacked a {{POV}} tag on it, and FourthAge took it off. I put it back, and was subjected to a barrage of abuse on my talk page that I tried to deal with sensibly.

Nothing happened for a few days and I kind of forgot about the article, and only remembered to follow up a few days ago. POV tag was gone again and the abusive bullshit posted on the talk page, all aimed at me, needs to be read to be believed. Me be angry. I'd really appreciate some cool heads to mediate this one. Thanks. Reyk 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) Now he's accusing me of actually being Jim Nussle, which is preposterous. Reyk 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, User: FourthAve has been consistantly inserting POV into both the Vander Plaats article and the Nussle article, as well as making unsigned comments on talk pages referring to Nussle's wife as a whore and making absurd/paranoid accusations of other sorts. See Talk:Jim_Nussle for an example. - Jaysus Chris 05:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Gretzky

Mediation is required over a conflict in wording in the article as to whether "many" or "most" hockey authorities support Gretzky as the greatest hockey player of all time. User: TrulyTory has reverted this edit eleven times in five days, and has been cited for 3RR violation, while myself, User: Masterhatch, User: Croat Canuck among others back the current consensus. A similar dispute is taking place over in Bobby Orr. This has been RfCed with no result. RGTraynor 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative RV Wars

User: Keithd claims he is "fighting on two fronts" to stop two articles from allowing factual references to anti-semitism, or fascism. He believes they are anti-conservative attempts at "guilt by association". He calls me anti-Christian, among other things, and behaves in a rather hostile manner while revert warring 24/7. Also claims I am arrogantly acting beyond my bounds when opposing his changes (I am not an American nor an american-style conservative.) Should articles such as those just be left to editors who support the overall ideas? I don't know what to do. The two articles are: War on Christmas (as in the U.S. fox news theme) and Conservatism.--sansvoix 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've given up here, help is really needed.06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

Several of us have been trying to make edits to the article regarding the article on the Vlaams Belang, a Flemish political party viewed by many as extreme-right (though not by its leaders). Essentially, those edits intended to bring more perspective and nuances to the article as currently written. Indeed, the current version of the article gives much more space to opinions and links that downplay the fact that this party could be of extreme right. Facts and links volunteered by myself and others and that would have brought an alternative perspective have been systematically deleted or altered so as to contradict their original meaning by jvb, who is obviously a sympathizer of that party.

There is already a poster on that article mentioning that it may not reflect NPOV policy. I would however appreciate a mediation that would lead to a more balanced presentation of that party.

Meanwhile, until a consensus can be found, I would like to request this article to be deleted given its imbalance. 157.191.2.17 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although a conservative myself, I am no member of that Belgian/Flemish party. Moreover, there has NEVER been a moment that I was not prepared to discuss anything. I also try to stay polite in the discussion. If there is something POV, then please specify. Why this article attracks so much opponents, I don’t know. --Jvb – December 27, 2005.

Stub issue

Judging by this page the MedCom is presently inactive. Still, if any MedCommers read this, please take a look at User:SPUI/SFD, which is a list of users apparently disgruntled with SFD who have resorted to boycotting the process and encouraging others to do the same. While they have good reasons for being gruntled, this is hardly a way of solving anything, so I would appreciate some kind of mediation in the dispute. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds in West Azerbaijan Province of Iran

Request mediation for article West Azerbaijan. User:Zereshk keeps putting unverified (+ protected) tagg for no acceptable reason regarding the Kurds in Northern part of the province, despite of numerous credible sources. Thank you.

Diyako Talk + 13:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm request. The above party (Diyako) resorts to name calling and ad hominems and refuses to back down even though his position is outnumbered by other editors there, and despite lack of providing sufficient evidence.--Zereshk 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited enough sources but this party (Zereshk) ignores them and only accepts Tutk, Turk, Turk, and ignore Kurds!!! Diyako Talk + 03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (disputed conviction)

Baker's supporters, particularly David Lyons are attacking the page to either 1) delete or belittle arguments negative to Baker's claims of innocence 2) personalise the case against Mark Devlin, making it appear he is the only critic of the case 3) Belittling the media that criticism of Baker appeared in 4) removing factual data, such as a comparison of the arrest rates in the US and Japan. I believe that the article is reasonable as it stands by my last edit and would like like to request your help in mediating to prevent the page becoming an extension of Baker's support page. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)

Heavy revert warring going on between several parties, and gratuitous incivility all around. Users are now requesting censure of an admin who blocked them for revert warring. As an uninvolved party I believe this issue can only really be resolved through mediation. Radiant_>|< 23:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#actual proposal

This dispute is about infoboxes used in Korea-related articles, whether they should include the nearly-obsolete Hanja (chinese characters historically used in korea), in addition to the korean script Hangul and two romanizations. Having Hanja in the default infobox for modern Korean topics, where most Koreans don't use or even know the Hanja, discourages the use of the infobox, makes it harder to complete, and does not reflect actual local usage. A small group of Chinese-fluent wikipedians, however, are insisting on keeping Hanja, even where Koreans themselves don't use it. I propose to use non-Hanja infoboxes where Hanja comprises less than 1% of the mention of the topic in Korean language google results. Nobody objects to Hanja in the article body for historical, etymological, or disambiguation discussion. We're only talking about whether default infoboxes should include Hanja. We have tried a poll, which was worthless with Endroit's overbroad wording, and RfC, with very limited interest. Appleby 17:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony (regarding "global city" article)
• NAMBLA ∈ LGBT? - Guanaco