Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 07

John Kenney and Daeron

Hello, I'd like to request mediation with respect to articles regarding the western half of New Guinea. Specifically Papua (Indonesian province), but other pages as well. Daeron and I (and Wik) have been revert warring and arguing about this stuff on talk pages for some time. At this point, I think both of us are so fed up with each other that the intervention of some third party is necessary for any progress to be made. As it is now, we seem to be simply going in circles with one another. I have no particular preference as to mediator. john 04:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Initial contact by sannse (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Daeron has declined mediation at this time. -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Where did he do this? john 22:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Im sorry, I should have said: via e-mail. However Daeron has since replied again and I'm not quite clear on his meaning. I will update here as soon as possible. -- sannse (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Daeron has clarified (again by e-mail) that my initial understanding was correct and he does decline to participate in mediation -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch and Zestauferov

There has been a long-running feud between the both us, the details I will not recount here because I don't see how Mediation would resolve matters. However, there appears to be a development that Mediation might help with. Zestauferov wrote the following at Talk:David Rohl:

Well maybe (but any brief look at the biography I wrote 08:11, 27 Dec 2003 will answer best whether I know anything about his life or not), and perhaps you should read what people actually write in their messages and deal with those issues instead of angling the subject slightly. Whoever made you a mediator? For both of Our own healths Llywrch I recommend that neither of us actually make any direct comments to each other ever again. Please notice that I did not direct my last messages towards you, so why do you feel the need to direct any messages to me? If you don't reply to this posting I will take it you agree on a permanent cease-fire. Thankyou.

While I would like to accept this offer of a cease-fire (I have no problem with ignoring anything he writes), I feel there are couple of points that Zestauferov did not consider that would make any such cease-fire ineffective:

1. As an examination of the context of his post will show, he q

uestioned the motives of what I had wrote in the article David Rohl, making accusations I felt I must need answer. Because of this, I feel accepting this offer of a cease-fire implies that I must never respond to any criticism he makes of what I write, which is an unfair restriction on me -- as it would be on him. We need to find a point where both of us can hold the other blameless.

1. And lastly, & perhaps most importantly, is the fact each will end up editting articles that the other has contributed to. Unless some way for us to work together is found, then this cease-fire will not work.

Undoubtedly there are other practical points that need working out, but the fact there is some kind of common ground here leads me to suspect that Mediation may work in this case. -- llywrch 23:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have left a message for Zestauferov asking if he is prepared to accept mediation. Angela. 09:30, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Replied. Follow-up by sannse (talk) 20:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Religious Controversy on Japanese and English Wikipedia

Hello, My name is K.M. I am attacked by many people who has traditional religion. In Japanese Wikipedia, I'm stigmatized by Japanese administrators because I doubted to violate Japanese Copyrights Law, and I am blocked for a month. Added to this, they delated all of my contributions with no discussion. Now, I can't comment on these, and anti-Jehovah's Witnesses write slander of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think these are one-sided and I want to appeal Japanese Wikipedia to Japanese Court about them. And I think that all of the articles about Christianity in Japanese are POV. Please advise. K.M. 13:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I state his statement is based on misunderstanding from three reasons.

1. The direct reason of his brocking on ja.wiki was his reverting on discussion pages. He tried to erase others' comments opposed to him.
2. No one accused his faith. Anyone except him joining to discussion admit this is matter of transferrence of copyrighted product without permission.
3. At least two contributors who accuse his copyright violation claim they belong to the same denomination of him, and the materials they refer are available to the member of this inner group. KIZU 21:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of KM's claim, this is not the place to do it. The Japanese Wikipedia needs to be able to solve its own problems through discussion, consensus, relentless edit-warring and flaming. This doesn't really need mediation, though, it needs a consensus on how to work with Japanese copyright law. Tuf-Kat 21:45, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

I posted the consensus of Japanese Wikipedia. KIZU 18:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't say at your discretion. Mr.KIZU tells a lie. K.M. 06:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Even if I am a liar, not depending on it, here is not a place to mediate Japanese version issues. Go back to the bulletine board of Japanese Wikipedia: you can talk with others there and try to make concensuses. KIZU 11:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

User:GrazingshipIV, User:Hcheney

I am requesting mediation with this user do to accusations made by him against me. He has made baseless accusations that I engaged in inapproriate behavior regarding an admin vote. I request Bcorr as mediator. GrazingshipIV 01:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

GrazingshipIV, thank you for your faith in me as a mediator. I should note that I'm going to be in California from May 13 through May 22, and will have less accessibility to Wikipedia than usual. However, if Hcheney accepts and GrazingshipIV still wants me to act as mediator, I will be willing to serve as mediator. Also, I did a quick check of both talk pages, but didn't see what is at issue. It would be very helpful if either or both of you could please add a few links so I can see what has been happening, and then I can propose a way to move forward. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 02:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I accept mediation, but would have preferred to have handled this bilaterally outside of Wikipedia. I feel Bcorr will be a very acceptable mediator. --"DICK" CHENEY 12:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This is the source of the conflict Bcorr X GrazingshipIV 02:24, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict. I propose that I create a topic (thread) on the mediation message board, and if there is no objection, I will get things going this evening. You can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have created the topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board here. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:47, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Issue of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling

The arbitration committee has decided to refer the issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro for details. Martin 00:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Initial contact by sannse (talk) 21:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) at User talk:Anthony DiPierro and the talk pages of those who commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro. Any other interested parties are also welcome to comment here.

I agree to mediation on these issues subject to approval of the mediator, the method of mediation, and a more detailed specification of the subject of the mediation. anthony (see warning)

Thank you Anthony. I've waited before responding in the hope that someone else would come forward to act as the other party in this mediation, but so far that's not happened. It seems the mediation committee needs to discuss if and how we can fulfil the arbitration committee's request in this situation. Sorry for the delay -- sannse (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Kingturtle about being the other party? He was the one collecting most of the evidence. I don't know how much of the community considers this to be a current problem (well, I'm sure Wik still thinks Anthony is a troll). But I would say that many of us have learned to work with Anthony, as well as him learning to work with us. Anyway, to the extent that I might be a party (since I had a couple disagreements with Anthony), I consider those issues satisfactorily resolved and see no need for mediation. --Michael Snow 18:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I've left a message at User talk:Kingturtle -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Statement from the Mediation Committee

Concerning the mediation requested by the Arbitration Committee regarding User:Anthony DiPierro and a number of other users:

Although the members of the Mediation Committee have been willing to conduct a mediation and have solicited possible participants, to date no one has stepped forward to be a second party. As it has been the committee's experience that attempting to conduct a mediation discussion with only one party has not been successful, it seems best to wait until there are additional parties willing to participate. Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.

The Mediation Committee is more than willing to mediate this case if and when anyone comes forward with specific concerns.

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
Copied to User talk:Anthony DiPierro and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

Radicalsubversiv, Neutrality, and various anonymous users over Democratic Underground

In the hopes of avoiding a return to full-out edit war, I am seeking mediation over Democratic Underground. I stumbled upon the article a few weeks ago and noticed that there were a number of anonymous users repeatedly vandalizing the article and insert POV comments of various sorts. I requested protection for the page, and then attempted to propose compromise text. Upon the page being unprotected, I did my best to NPOV it, changes which Neutrality (who I strongly believe to be one of the previous participants in the conflict) and an anonymous user apparently find unacceptable; however, neither makes serious use of edit summaries or the talk page, limiting opportunities for dialogue. I have requested comment from the community, but there has been no interest. For the record, I don't have any experience with the site or the arguments under dispute, but I'm aware that it's a popular one and think we should have an NPOV article on it. RadicalSubversiv E 04:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Angela has left a message at User talk:Neutrality asking if he accepts mediation. 23:55 20 May 2004.

I accept. Neutrality 00:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Do either of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There are is a list of mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee -- sannse (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

It should've occurred to me when making the request that I'm traveling for two weeks beginning tomorrow (May 23) and am unlikely to be around. So this will have to wait. The dispute has been narrowed down to a couple of sentences at least, and I will post a revised RFC in the hopes of attracting more attention from the community. RadicalSubversiv E 02:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, Please let us know when you get back if you still want assistance with this. -- sannse (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Transwoman

I find myself locked in an argument with two people about the sexual orientation of transwomen. I have edited the article in question to what I feel is a NPOV, describing the two commonly held beliefs. AlexR insists that one belief is unfounded and refuses to accept any resolution that does not agree with his POV. References which support the "unfounded" position are provided in the article. I have repeatedly requested that he provide any evidence that his position has any merit at all; he has not. Help would be appreciated. -- User:Eequor

That is one way of putting it, but not quite how I understand the debate. Also, it was two people agreeing with me, that makes three, not two. Not to mention that I provided ample reference, and the articles cited do not support the "number equal to that of ciswomen" position, either.
I did make an RFC yesterday, on the same issue. Given the fact that these topics don't seem to generate many comments, though, I do agree to mediation, because obviously nothing whatever can be gained from further debate.
I also suggested several times now to simply remove any reference to the ratio of lesbian and straight transwomen, since there can be no agreement reached. For me, that would be far more acceptable then what is in the article now. The reasons for that can be found in the debate. -- AlexR 16:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Do either of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There are is a list of mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I do not have any particular preferences, since I do not know any of the mediators; except that Angela once helped out during an edit war on Heteronormativity. On #wikipedia Anthere was suggested because "Anthere is normally OK with gender-related stuff". (I asked there because I have never been on mediation before, and I hang out on #de.wikipedia all day, anyway.) However, as I said, I have no particular preference or more facts than that to develop one.

I do however request something from the mediator: Namely that s/he, whoever it is, does not feel particularly uncomfortable when talking about transgender or transsexual matters, or about lesbians. (I don't think gay will come up, but by now I am prepared for about everything. We already had UFOs.)

I also suggest to everybody interested (or stuck) with mediating this dispute to read Talk:List of transgender-related topics, points 3 JulieADriver and 4 Transsexed/Intersexed are not trans* or transgender!. That's sort of a prelude to the current debate; it was User:JulieADriver who started putting the debated sentence into the article, and the TS "vs." TG debate might be an underlying theme in the current debate. It often is ... -- AlexR 02:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks AlexR. Eequor, do you have any views on who the mediator should be? -- sannse (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a preference. --Eequor 07:43, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Anthere is not available until at least next week, but might be later (but that is dependant on other commitments). Perhaps better would be a mediator who is available sooner. User:Cimon avaro is available and willing to mediate. Will you both accept him as mediator? -- sannse (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

He's fine with me. -- AlexR 21:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay with me as well. --Eequor 18:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks both, Cimon avaro will be in contact with you shortly to discuss this further. -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Sannse mentionned to me your disagreement. I will unfortunately not be available at all for the next two days, and little till saturday. You might feel the issue is pressing, or you may consider that a couple of days might help cool down spirits... that is really up to you :-) I think I have no set opinion on the topic and am not unconfortable talking about sex issues. However, I am sure Cimon will be able to help you anyway. I might hang around the topic next week if you still didnot find a solution :-) My best. SweetLittleFluffyThing

RickK, Sam Spade

Rick has called me a troll on multiple occasions, and when requested to stop, deleted my comment [1]. I request relief. Sam [Spade] 05:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, could you provide links to pages and/or diffs where Rick has called you a troll? I am also leaving him a note asking him if he will accept mediation with you. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RickK has declined mediation with a message left on my talk page. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP: Between User:Tannin and User:Ta bu shi da yu

Hi, could we get mediation for the NPOV and factual accuracy tags? The issue is that I don't believe their is much non-NPOV material on the page and there is no factual inaccuracy that I can see. User Tannin will not allow any of us to remove the tags from the top of the article. His issue is that he believes that the User Interface section is apologising for Microsoft and that only criticisms should be shown in the criticisms section. He won't let anyone place the opposing view and this gives the article a very anti-Microsoft slant. I have modified this slightly to try to rectify this, but this is apparently not good enough. He also has stated that there is factual inaccuracy in the page because: "(a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems." Quoting from last revision in talk 02:21, 6 Jul 2004 in Talk:Windows_XP#NPOV_and_Factual_Inaccuracy.

Also (and I'm not sure if I should put this in here) I object to the way that he has characterised me as a troll - he said I am engaged in "trolling bullshit" - and that I'm am performing a "syncophantic whitewash". See Talk:Windows_XP#NPOV_and_Factual_Inaccuracy I dislike his personal attacks over an issue as silly as a dispute about an operating system! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

User:Sparky and User:172, User:Dominick, and User:Gazpacho

The Ronald Reagan page. I'm tired of constantly stating — April 1, 1991 - The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times report that Selene Walters had verified her claim that then SAG President Ronald Reagan raped her in her home in 1952 — is not gossip. Gazpacho has passive-agressively made rather odd comments on my Talk page. I believe I am seeing Sysop Abuse from 172. - Sparky 18:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment after discussion with User:Sparky.

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

I am Gilgamesh. Mustafaa and I have been having charged conflicts with IZAK over the articles concerning Canaanite languages and Hebrew language. In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it, and has tried to eliminate "Category:Canaanite languages" altogether. The relevant articles are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, Biblical Hebrew language, Hebrew alphabet, and the categories "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language". Edit histories are available for those articles, and most of the discussion is at User_talk:IZAK, apparently recently mirrored at Talk:Modern Hebrew language. - Gilgamesh 08:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, I am IZAK , recently I was reading freshly re-written articles by Gilgamesh and Mustafaa on the above topics. Firstly: I am NOT trying to "to eliminate Category:Canaanite languages altogether". On the contrary, I agree that it should be there. I have no problem with it. My problem is that this category is attempting to encompass the totality of the Hebrew language, including Modern Hebrew language even as spoken in modern-day Israel. No-one associates the Hebrew language with anything "Canaanite" except for a few obscure linguists. For most general scholars and laymen Hebrew has always been classified as a Semitic language, without reference to a dubious "Canaanite" sub-group. The position/s put forward by Mustafaa and Gilgamesh is that there were more than one "Hebrew" language and hence more than one "Hebrew" people. This runs counter to the teachings of Judaism that the ancient Hebrews are the ancestors and direct progenitors of today's Jews. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh want to have it both ways: They seek to impose their own dichotomies and theories about the BIBLICAL Hebrew Language and the BIBLICAL Hebrews aka the Children of Israel, yet when one wants to refer to the contents of that self-same primary source as a framework for discussion they switch-and-bait and declare that now it is all a case of "imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". If they do not accept the "historicity" of the Hebrew language in its original then they are in effect rejecting 99.99% of all information about the Hebrew people and language as their sources about "Ammonites", "Edomites", "Moabites", and "Cananites" are almost exclusively provided in the Hebrew Bible itself. It is NOT a case of: "In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". On the contrary, I am asking for MORE inclusivity by calling for recognition that there are hundred of millions of people, not just Jews, who believe in the truth of the Hebrew Bible in its original language. And, it is in that context that note must be taken that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "several" Hebrew people with several Hebrew "languages". Thus, it is ONLY one group that spoke Hebrew and one group that held onto it for millenia and that is the Jewish people as they are known today. If anything, they and their language should be classified as Semitic, they most definitely do NOT belong in Category:Canaanite languages as the Hebrew language is its OWN unique sub-group. Thank you. IZAK 09:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You do not understand my arguments at all... Though conversely I may have also misunderstood many of your points. I believe Mustafaa and I are correct, as the Canaanite linguistic classification of Hebrew languages in ancient Canaan is attested in linguistics books and academic websites such as Ethnologue and Linguist List. The very historicity of the Hebrews itself is disputed, though I believe in them. But I think the sticking points here are (1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan". Oh, and I truly resent being accused of "bait-and-switch". I'm just a bookworm and an editor, and malice is unethical as well as a sin. I do not understand the vehement opposition to what is valid concensus in the linguistics field, and I don't see how it can be contrary to the Torah beliefs either (see Eber and Hebrew and the believed genealogies of Ammon, Moab, Edom and Israel). What on earth did I do to warrant such attacks? I don't believe the Hebrews were Canaanites, nor that the Canaanites were Hebrews; that established, what is so offensive about the idea of Biblical Hebrew being an adopted Canaanite language? I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here. - Gilgamesh 09:21, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

• Firstly, please calm down as this is only an academic, albeit vigorous, debate.
• You must see:Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"?: "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side."

You will note that it is Abraham who is the original Hebrew as regards the origins of the Hebrew people. You are again injecting your own speculations about Eber for whatever reasons.

• With regards to your "points":

"(1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan"."

• Number (3) I answered above showing you the correct path of interpretation as far as Jewish scholraship goes.

• • As I said before, it is a theological issue, and is open to opinion and interpretation. The various Jewish interpretations is disputable, just as the various Christian, Islamic and atheist interpretations are also disputable. - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

• With number (2) it is sheer speculation on anyone's part to place Hebrew as a "Canaanite" language. The Book of Genesis records that in Abraham's time there were TEN nations living in Canaan, and they were enemies of Abraham. Were they also "Hebrews" and "Hebrew-speakers" by dint of living in Canaan, or is Abraham and independent and wholy new "Hebrew" who brings his own language with him. Amon, Moab and Edom are all derived from groups that moved AWAY from Abraham route and developed as their people and cultures, whatever they spoke has no relation to the later Hebrew language as presented in the written Bible/Torah that Jewsx had refered to as Lashon HaKodesh the "Holy Tongue (Language)" suitable for their religious rites and holy studies.

• • They are academically Canaanite. See [2], [3], [4] - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

• And (1)You tell me who considers the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to be "Hebrews" no different to the Hebrews who became the Children of Israel ? IZAK 10:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes, though I believe the Torah says they were different in that they split and became different and went on different paths. See these articles' discussions on Eber and Hebrews. [5], [6], [7] - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this should resume, if at all, on Talk:Hebrew language. I did not envision the argument to resume here when this place (that we're cluttering) could be reserved for more mediation requests. It's partially my fault for always responding when and where something is said. - Gilgamesh 11:28, 7 July 2004 (UTC)