Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Please read the information in the "What is mediation?", before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at Wikipedia:Mediation.

You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation (what is mediation)

It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask.

It's important that this page should not become a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.

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

See #Archives for past requests.

Please place requests at the bottom of this section, and date your comment

VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas

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

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

Users Ato and RaffiKojian regarding History of Turkey article

User:RaffiKojian and I (User:Ato) are engaged in a revert war (now ceased thanks to User:AndyL's protection of the page, per my request) in History of Turkey article. Raffi wants to make a reference to Armenian Genocide article in this article, and formulates it in a way that disregards the dispute surrounding this issue. I am opposing this on two grounds: 1) At this level of detail in the article this reference makes it imbalanced. We neglect a lot of important parts of prerepublic history of Turkey, this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other events 2) The way Raffi wants it to be included: "Ottoman Empire carried out Armenian Genocide", which incidentally is the way it is included in the protected article, does not mention the context in which the referred events happened and disregards the majority of Turkish population's view, namely that these events do not deserve to be called genocide. I would like to point out that this is not the same as denying the deaths, or the order of deportation etc. so saying something like "Turkey denies it happened" gives quite a wrong impression, a detailed explanation is necessary if a reference will be made. I have taken a break from editing the article and asked for third party opinion, in particular from User:Jerzy. He responded but Raffi and I still failed to come to an agreement. I proposed a comprimise: leaving the article in a form which makes both of us unhappy [1] (I object to the reference at this level of detail, Raffi objects to the form of the reference) and work on a draft (see: History of Turkey/Draft), which Raffi has so far ignored. I asked Raffi to ask for mediation together, but he did not respond (even though he was swiftly reverting my changes), so I am asking for mediation by myself. If anybody wants to discuss this issue, I would be happy to provide more details. Even if you are not a mediator or do not want to mediate but has things to say, please feel free to leave messages on my talk page, e.g., for pointing out what could have I done differently and why. at0 21:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice Ato's message to me about mediation on the 12th. No matter, I agree on the request for mediation. I feel like my whole exchange with Ato has been a waste, despite my attempts for discussion and compromise. I went along with his request not to include it in the Turkey article at all. I went along with his request for user Jerzy to give his thoughts on whether it belonged on the History of Turkey page at all (Jerzy thought definitely so). I replied to why the wording he was reverting to was completely false and he ignored my explanations, comments on that. So I feel like all I can agree with on this is that we need a third party to step in here. His unilateral decision to create a new draft is fine, but I am just watching it to see how it develops. I certainly have the feeling anything I wrote on there would be removed, just like before. I would be happy to have Jerzy write the Armenian Genocide reference. To say that he was did not like the one small sentence genocide reference because it was so prominent in a short article seems ridiculous to me. First it is so brief, primarily serving as a link. Second it is natural for an article to develop in one place then another. Third, I think in general when he says things like "this inclusion gives the impression its importance exceeds many other", it just shows his attitude that the genocide was not a big deal. Not important enough to warrant space. Then he goes on after saying it takes up too much space, that there should be more background/explanation. His denial that it was genocide is even one thing, but his attempt to characterize this as "Armenian view vs. Turkish" even is not a fair one. Virtually serious scholars not getting funding from the Turkish government - including a number of Turkish scholars agree it was genocide. It is a truth vs. the Turkish Government battle, and the massive efforts of Turkey to prevent discussion and censor the suject in Turkey that have led to this. Anyway - I feel like there is no way I can convince Ato with facts when trying to find proper wording, so let me know what is needed from me on mediation. --RaffiKojian 03:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to act as a mediator here, if neither party objects to my presence. Ambi 03:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Xed and Jayjg

See Archive 10
Since both parties having agreed to accept me as their Mediator, I request that everyone avoid commenting publicly on this matter until Mediation is concluded. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:One Salient Oversight and User:Zen-master at Hubbert Peak

One Salient Oversight turned down mediation; "I am no longer going to participate in this debate...". See Archive 10

I turned down nothing. No one came to mediate. That's my problem. One Salient Oversight 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the point of arbitration is not just to decide, but to help everyone involved reach consensus? Mediation is the step before arbitration, we passed over that. You are always welcome on the Hubbert Peak page OSO, I appreciate your opinion. Zen Master 03:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Chuck F and User:Rhobite

Mediation underway by sannse. See Archive 10.

User:AlexR and User:AWilliamson regarding Cross-dressing

Mediation underway by Ambi. See Archive 10.

Netoholic and Raul654

After weeks of trying reach some sort of congenial editing relationship with Raul654, my recent efforts have failed. To quote a message that I left on his talk page:

"Raul - I would like to request, as nicely as possible, that you please stop assuming bad faith in my edits, calling me names (like troll), and showing bias against me. Your recent attitude has done nothing but make me feel very uncomfortable working here, and I don't believe that someone in such a position of respect in this community should act so uncivil.

"I spend the vast majority of my time here making very productive enhancements. At no time do I ever make any edit, or begin any discussion on IRC, with the purpose of causing strife. Unfortunately, I got off on the wrong foot with a few members here, and that has been perpetuated beyond what is called for - leading me to try and defend myself from the particularly fashionable practice of "troll-bashing". I look to you, as someone who has the respect of many users here, to help me stop this. If I make a mistake in the future, I certainly ask and welcome that it be discussed with me respectfully. I think I've shown often in the past that I am willing to make changes and come to agreement. In return for your help in stopping this, I will commit to listening more closely to those suggestions and admit fault when I don't.

"I really do think that you and a number of other members here have the wrong idea about me, being perhaps jaded by previous encounters. I hope that, with this note, you will see that I am actually a pleasant and hopefully valuable member of the community here. -- Netoholic @ 15:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) "

Unfortunately, Raul654 doesn't yet seem willing to discuss his disagreements with my edits in a rational way, and instead relies on revert wars and page protection to enforce his view. While he is a member of the Arbitration Committee, I feel that outside of that role he should abide with common and civil behavior. I've previously also tried to work this out on IRC in private conversation. It's my hope that an impartial voice can somehow bring this to an end. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

[Comment removed by sannse (talk) 10:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

Netoholic: Raul has replied on his talk page. I think at this point you should continue this discussion - which appears to be a very positive one on both sides. If things do not improve and you still need help then come back to us. We will have to look carefully at this request however, to be sure that it does not interfere in any way with the current request for arbitration involving you (I'm aware that Raul has reclused himself from that discussion) -- sannse (talk) 10:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have read his responses. Frankly, when I read them, all I see is more of the same jibes and no real desire on his part to simply call all of this to an end. I really think mediated discussion outside of the Wikipedia space will do more for this. Right now, right or wrong, his comments seems to be written in order to save face with his friends here, rather than showing a true desire to work this out. I think more than just having him "treat me like any other user", I am looking for him to come further and actually work positively with me. Not saying we have to be "friends", but I would really like to get to a point where he will encourage others to take the same path. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

I think I finally have Netoholic pegged. Everyone thinks he's a troll out to do nothing but cause trouble. Until today, I did as well. But after talking with someone else whose judgement I trust, I've come to realize that that's not exactly the case. Later discussions with him confirmed it. Netoholic is a well intentioned user (as is evidenced by his good edits to articles) who has a complete ineptitude when it comes to interacting with other users. He's obstinant, stubborn, combative, disobedient, and totally unable to admit his mistakes. Most importantly, he ignores others when they tell him ANYTHING he disagrees with and his ignorance of the rules and customs of Wikipedia only exacerbates the situation. When he does do something obviously wrong and is reverted, he thinks it's because everyone is ganging up on him (paranoia?); he seems totally unable to grasp the idea that yes, he just might have made a mistake. So he continues edit warring ad infinitum. He's alieniated virtually anyone who has interacted with him. And that's why he has a case request before the arbcom.

In my dealings with him, I've made two distinct acts of good faith - I unprotected the arbcom template he had been making outragous edits to (with the understanding that he would not edit it, but would discuss on the RFA talk page) and I asked Blankfaze to stop reverting him on the speedy deletion candidates. In return, he burned me by editing the arbcom template with the same outragous edit, and then later in IRC he started ignoring me while we were discussing the issue.

I don't think a mediator is needed so much as someone like Ed who can tutor him on how to behave properly on Wikipedia and instruct him in the finer points of knowing when you are wrong. →Raul654 05:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Users Adraeus, FeloniousMonk, Bryan, Andre vs. Sam Spade, Shane, 20040302, Nat Krause

There is (once more) a dispute arising at Talk:Atheism. I am satisfied that multiple POVs should brought into the article, but some regulars such as Adraeus and Bryan et al. are particularly interested in brow-beating the issue. Particularly, I find remarks such as "Sorry, bub. You're wrong." particularly intolerant of POVs that differ from their author. Last time the issue was raised, there was just one voice (Sam Spade in a sockpuppet) who disagreed with them, and his viewpoint was considered solitary. Now there is a multiplicity of views and arguments, that appear to be split on the issue of whether or not atheism/theism is an exclusive dichotomy. My position regarding the article is that both POV (exclusive/non-exclusive) are legitimate views, but I have been told by Atreus "If you edit the article to suit your view, I'll consider your edit vandalism and act appropriately." Help! (20040302 07:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC))

This appears to me to be a dispute on facts, not a NPOV dispute or a personal dispute that might respond to mediation. The solution here is to prove your case, or accept that the other side have proved their case. The "point of view" that black is white has no place in an article, and no amount of mediation will change that - in this case one side or the other is right, I don't feel this is a matter of point of view. Perhaps another mediator will see a way to help in this situation but for now I (and the other mediator I discussed this with) feel this is not an area we can help in. -- sannse (talk) 10:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, Saint Andrew, Jesus

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

Are you sure mediation really is what you are looking for? Have a look at the top of the page, and especially WP:Dispute resolution. I am not sure it is, and neither am I sure that mediation could help you. A WP:Request for comment would seem the way to go, if you don't think the discussion works. -- AlexR 06:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andre and Sannse seems to be mediators, too. Could you mediate with mediators? Rantaro 09:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I can't respond as a mediator to this request but a couple of points - Andre is an advocate rather than a mediator. I'm a mediator, but that doesn't affect the process - it just means I cannot mediate in this case. For the rest, someone else will have to respond. -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Gene Poole and Gzornenplatz, Samboy
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 9 for details.

• Slrubenstein and Darrien
  • Matter resolved. See Archive 9 for details.

• Rorschach567 and Michael Rawdon
  • Mediation underway with Danny. See Archive 8 for the request.

• Herschelkrustofsky and DJSupreme23
  • Archived as Herschelkrustofsky no longer accepting mediation, and the case is already at arbitration.

• AndyL and WHEELER
  • Archived as AndyL is away until September 15.

• Simonides and Jayjg, RK, Humus sapiens + others.
  • Simonides has retracted his request for mediation. See Archive 8 for details.

• Lance6Wins and Zero0000
  • See Archive 9 for details.

• bcrowell and eclecticology
  • Matter resolved. Moved discussion to subpage /Bcrowell and Eclecticology - SV

• Rex071404 and Gamaliel
  • Archived to to allow for the request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404 to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See Archive 9 for details. -- BCorr|Брайен 16:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Rex071404 and Neutrality
  • Mediation declined, see Archive 9 for details.

• Guanaco and Cantus
  • Mediation declined, see Archive 9 for details.

• K1 and refdoc
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 8 for details.

• Johnleemk and Drbalaji md
  • Mediation inactive. Dr Bajali has not edited Wikipedia since 14 Jun 2004. See Archive 9 for details.

• Zestauferov and Jayjg
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

• RK and DanKeshet (and/or Zero0000
  • Mediation inactive. See Archive 10 for details.

• Halibutt (and others) and CVA
  • Mediation successful. See Archive 10 for details.

• User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen
  • Mediation inactive. See Archive 10 for details.

• Rex071404 and Nysus
  • Ongoing discussion occuring at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rex071404 and Nysus

• User:Adraeus and User:Nunh-huh
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

• User:Kizzle and User:Rex071404
  • The disputants are working things out on their own. See Archive 10 for details.

• User:Vbs and User:PedroPVZ
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

• User:Snowspinner and User:orthogonal
  • Archived as this is now being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration after the mediation had become inactive. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 10#User:Snowspinner and User:orthogonal for details.

• User:VeryVerily and User:christiankavanagh
  • Mediation declined. See Archive 10 for details.

• "Antonio Fun Martin" and User:Tverbeek
  • Archived to to allow for the request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to have time to defuse this conflict by bringing in a broader range of editors. See Archive 10 for details.

• Neutrality and libel about Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Mediation successful. Archive 10 for details.

• Users Shorne and User:Fred Bauder
  • Archived as this is now being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See Archive 10 for details.

• Users VeryVerily, Shorne, and Ruy Lopez
  • Archived as this is now being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See Archive 11 for details.

• Users Xed and Jayjg
  • Mediation underway with User:Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed".

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal) for info
• the mediation bulletin board for discussions about mediation on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia mediation IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates

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