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.
Status: Rejected
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)
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)
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. Sasquatch t| c 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Users involved:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There needs to be a mediation over the article, Inedia.
Maprovonsha172 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Researcher99, you're the one being uncooperative. Mediation isn't about laying blame. Andre ( talk) 19:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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):
Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
in case this proceeds to arbitration, I would like to submit Nixer's behaviour on Proto-Indo-European language ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Proto-World language ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where he employs rather similar tactics) as part of the case. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in mediation, as a consequence of the nature of the exchange on these articles' respective talkpages. dab (ᛏ) 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
This mediation was successfully concluded in October 2005. -- Fahrenheit451 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
This argument started on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation
User:Ed Poor, a mediator here, was also active in the editing of Winter Soldier Investigation:
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.
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:
On 10 Feb 2005
User:AllyUnion unprotected the site:
On 13:00, 25 August 2005 User:Rd232 again protected the site:
On 17:35, 13 September 2005 User:Tony SidawayTalk unprotected the site:
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 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). Sasquatch t| c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
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 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.
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:
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. Sasquatch t| c 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
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. Sasquatch t| c 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
Status: Rejected
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)
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)
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. Sasquatch t| c 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Users involved:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There needs to be a mediation over the article, Inedia.
Maprovonsha172 20:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Researcher99, you're the one being uncooperative. Mediation isn't about laying blame. Andre ( talk) 19:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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):
Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
in case this proceeds to arbitration, I would like to submit Nixer's behaviour on Proto-Indo-European language ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Proto-World language ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where he employs rather similar tactics) as part of the case. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in mediation, as a consequence of the nature of the exchange on these articles' respective talkpages. dab (ᛏ) 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
This mediation was successfully concluded in October 2005. -- Fahrenheit451 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
This argument started on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation
User:Ed Poor, a mediator here, was also active in the editing of Winter Soldier Investigation:
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.
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:
On 10 Feb 2005
User:AllyUnion unprotected the site:
On 13:00, 25 August 2005 User:Rd232 again protected the site:
On 17:35, 13 September 2005 User:Tony SidawayTalk unprotected the site:
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 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). Sasquatch t| c 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
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 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.
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:
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. Sasquatch t| c 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
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. Sasquatch t| c 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)