Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/01

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation‎ | Rejected
Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

User:Baphin edit

According to the editing procedure on List of Freemasons, all edits must be cited with Lodge info or other verifiable sources. Recently, Baphin added individuals from Turkey back to the list. They were removed because they were unverifiable at the time see here. Baphin added them back in, and did not add any citations here. I rved per procedure and notified him on his user page [1]. He responded by saying all GLs maintain list of famous Masons in other jurisdictions (they do not), and that it was easily verfiable (it was not, as I do not read Turkish). Rather than find citations, he instead tried to start an argument. He also re-added the section here and still did not add citations. I reverted his edits and some other uncites by other users engaging in repetitive minor edits here. I would prefer that this not escalate into revert warring - the policies on the List are clear, Baphin did not read them, and although I gave him clear and polite instruction on how to resolve the issue, he ignored it and tried to start a poorly done argument. Therefore, I would like the issue mediated as a first resort, with RFAr to follow if unsuccessful. MSJapan 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate parties are in agreement to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jason Gastrich edit

Jason was quite irritated when a number of articles he contriubuted to were nominated for deletion, mostly for non-notability. He sent emails to at least two members who identified as Christian on their user pages (I was one) to support his articles, and has since then made a number of AfDs in questionable faith.

I think it would benefit if the moderator who specifically handles this case identifies as Christian.

Contact me for any further assistance, or if I can give any further information.

--Justin Eiler 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an active RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. The above incident is only a part of the problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject: The issue is at RfC, let the RfC finish. If the RfC does not solve the problems, reopen.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#actual proposal edit

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]

  • Reject: Without prejudice, unless intent of all parties to mediate can be established.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (disputed conviction) edit

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]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds in West Azerbaijan Province of Iran edit

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]

  • Reject: Parties indicate desire for mediation, but do not demonstrate good faith interest; mediation requires a good faith and civil attempt to reach an agreement. Mediation is not a way of "winning"; neither party will emerge from mediation victorious.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub issue edit

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]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 05:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative RV Wars edit

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)
  • I am available to mediate the case. I will leave a note for both of you, and if both parties are interested, mediation can commence. --Improv 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shoot. You've left wikipedia, according to your talk page. Sigh. I wish I had read this earlier. --Improv 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delisted, as one of the parties left Wikipedia.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Gretzky edit

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]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Vander Plaats edit

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]
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people edit

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]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris edit

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 [2] and WP:3O [3] 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]
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. Further, a single editor demonstrating article ownership is an issue for RfC before mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [[4]], 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: [5]. 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]
But, according to everyone this is a "major" conflict of interest!!!, however:
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]
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 [7] 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:
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]
So what you are saying is we should conserve the current format even if people object to it. I believe it is important to represent an equal vote of peoples voice here on wikipedia. Concensus for something may change after time just as evolution take place in most societies. As for the diff between motorcycle and moped. I am citting the resemblances; Those being they are all two-wheeled vehicles. As per your analogy. The reasoning is this: If, electric bicycles (a two wheeled vehicle) and motorized bicycles (a two wheeled vehicle) are POV FORK to each other. (according to "concensus" and "you"). Then Motorcycle (a two wheeled vehicle) and motorized bicycle (a two wheeled vehicle) are also POV forks (to each other). (humm... Where is the psychology student mediator when we need one!) --CyclePat 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pat, what I'm saying is we should preserve the current format (assuming you mean electric bikes rolled in) because only one person objects to it. And that person is by their own admission not neutral. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
only one person? Who's that?... Oh! you're inferring me, aren't you?<sarcastically innocent like> Your making this well to easy to debate. Really, come on, one guy. After I just showed (and cited) you all the aforementioned people that seemingly agree with this. After all, I am only here to speak for them. If they wouldn't have mentioned anything I don't think we would be here right now. I would have probably though about it 3 to 5 times and swallowed my pride. But that not the case, instead I've though about it at least 91 times (the approx. amount of days since October)). You seem to fail to recognize the fact that there are other people that agree with this and constantly claim irrelevant facts such as my alleged inherent interest. Is this because I built 2 electric bicycles. I call that discrimination my friend and if this was a job... "your honour, I was refused to be able to work because I own 2 electric bicycles.(Oh! and a company.)" If wikipedia is going to start to disallow anyone to edit because of their association to a group or clan, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for me (or anyone, when you think about it). As some wise man once said, in different context of course, "Let the first person without associations throw the first edit!" !)(b.t.w.: I sleeps in Montreal Canadiens Boxer Shorts!! Maybe I shouldn't be aloud to edit any Canadian Content!)<sarcasm intentended here>. Now, how about staying on topic, unless you want a start an argument about association somewhere else, dunno wikipolicy? So what where we talking about. Oh, yeah! POV FORKS. recently I've even noticed the article "Types of motorcycle." I came to a sudden realization. Why isn't "motorized bicycle" in there! In many states "motorized bicycle" is the term for Moped. Content lacking to our motorized bicycle article, perhaps we should add all the states and countries that consider them motorized bicycles. (not just a bloody generalization... and theral list (and no... list doesn't have to be the kind we always delete... I mean a well developed blurb for each section)... I think what you would realize is that most jurisdictions are accepting the term electric assisted bicycles, and power-assisted bicycles. But perhaps you can explain to me again why you believe this is a POV? (asides from the fact that these vehicles are somewhat similar in appearance and also have a different histories, and even often different laws governing their use.). Another issue is: if they so similar why is it you keep removing certain pictures (which are seemingly "motorized bicycles", and some of which are "electric bicycles" from the motorized bicycle article?--CyclePat 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was settled by consensus ages ago. You are the only one pressing for it to be reopened, and you have a vested interest. The total absence of support for this RfM demonstrates that more eloquently than anythign I can say, especially given your history of ignoring what I say when it's not what you want to hear. You are not so much flogging a dead horse as beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay, as far as I can tell. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my refutation comment:
  1. What does 1) the alleged fact, (even though I have clearly demonstrated futher up that many people agree with me), that you consider me the only one pressing for it, and 2) the your alleged biased opinion, (even though I have demonstrated that this is total discrimination), that I may have a "vested interest", have to do with this issue?
  2. I feal you must have strong links with environmentalism? You do often an excellent job at cleaning up wikipedia. You nominate many pages for deletion. You advocate that this place should be cleaner. Am I right? There is however a few things wrong with being so tidy. As Dr. Jay Lehr, science director, The Heartland Institute, 2004-11-19 has said "Environmental advocacy groups work to stifle economic and industrial progress wherever they find it to inhibit the successful advancement of peoples in developing nations, inevitably making mankind a second class citizen of planet Earth." The same I believe may be infered for wikipedia.
  3. The reasons I believe no one is anwering to this RfM is because 1) we are arguing pretty well and 2)we are talking and mediation should involve the parties in question (anyone poking their nose into here would probably be considered or may feel like an instigator) 3) They probably are afraid to comment (leaving to believe we should probably have a vote... and at the correct page, unlike your alleged "concensus on the subject." Maybe this page is not in the right spot.(Remember this is a Request for mediation... this is not supposed to be MEDIATION.) Rules for mediation sugest we have a SHORT SUMMARY of the issues. We have both violated this guideline. But we are communicating, isn't that what is important, right?).
  4. Finally I can't help but feal like you are inhibiting the production of wikipedia, and if your grounds for deleting pedelec, or having other articles (such as electric bicycle), are solely based on those few criterias (ie.: my alleged "vest interest" and the allege "past consideration"), then you should not have ask yourself why I believe this is ill-faithed and why it should be included. I can't help but feel like Azrael from Dogma, who said, "This is huge, man. Your re-entry is a thorn in a lot of sides. And they'll stop at nothing — I mean nothing — to prevent it." --CyclePat 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a separate article for electric bicycle was discussed in detail, and there was consensus to merge. Nothing has changed since then, except you've tried to fork it to pedelec, which was deleted by strong consensus. You admit you have a vested interest, someone who is taking legal action local to you with whom you are involved. And you build electric bikes. And in the end there is a limit to the number of times I am prepared to go over the same old ground. On Wikipedia you are supposed to go with the flow, not keep on trying different processes until you get the answer you want. There is nothing wrong with the current situation and certainly nothing which justifies mediation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may believe I admit to that, but I couldn't possibly comment. However if you read carefully what I wrote I admited to nothing of the sort. (This is one fault I find that happens often, that is making broad judgements) I simply re factored your comments to have a better understanding of why you have decided to bring this controversially and discriminatory angle to the discussion. I simply asked you a question. Well, a few questions. And, again, your attempt for a rebutal has failed, and you remain with an unanswered question. (for what appears to be the 3rd time.) Let me rephrased this. What does your, what I consider discriminatory, opinion towards alleged "vested interest" in the subject (or better yet toward any particular article) have to do with the or it's deletion? (another example: Jimmy really loves eating, McDonald's Ice Cream Sunday. So Jimmy write an article on Ice Cream sundae's? The fact that Jimmy really really really likes Sundays is totally irrelevant to subject matter, and I wish you could see that. Now if you have another issue to discuss, such as... perhaps the sundae should be under McDonald vs Ice cream, (or maybe in it's own complete article such as McDonald sundae then perhaps we might be getting somewhere.) The same I believe applies to this situation of Pedelec belonging in motorized bicycle or moped and electric bicycle or having it's own article. --CyclePat 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the discusion of merger of electric bicycle was not discussed in detail, (in the sense of leaving many lose ends and many unanswered question) other wise we wouldn't be here. Secondly, as I have asked (but phrased differently), what is the relevance of this past discusion, for this current matter? (meaning this may be irrelevant to the discusion)--CyclePat 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate. This appears to be an issue for RfC; additionally, if the parties involved aren't willing to mediate, then we can't make them. Take it to RfC, or if there is indeed a desire on all sides to mediate, post a new request.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theodore7 edit

I request mediation between User:Theodore7 and several of the participants in this RfC. The case is well described in this RfC, but basicly we need someone who will help us graduatly incorporate several of the changes Theo is trying to make in his significant rewrites of astrology, Nostradamus and several other articles. For reasons clarified in the RfC, I request that the person who will mediate in this case is 40 years, but preferably older. —Ruud 13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:OpenInfo edit

User:OpenInfo was blocked indefinitely (and unfairly) by request of NathanZook due to user editing an article on Messianic "Judaism", using a totally NPOV, that conflicted with NathanZook's Messianic beliefs.

NathanZook then left a long, completely false, statement in User:OpenInfo's discussion page, and accused user of "Vandalism".

User replied, and then NathanZook requested that editor Jtkiefer ban user OpenInfo.

Jtkiefer is an editor who is well known for banning people without a second look. He accused OpenInfo of "threatening" NathanZook.

However, there were no "threats" made, only a statement saying that NathanZook was falsely accusing OpenInfo of: 

  - posting Christian links (check the history, it is untrue)
  - fixing spelling mistakes (also false)
  - several other edits (also false)

User OpenInfo merely stated that NathanZook must be either lying, or confused, due to the sheer volume of false accusations made. That was no threat, merely an observation.

  • Reject: This is not an issue for mediation. First, the Mediation Committee is not an appeals tribunal; we do not review administrator actions and pronouce judgement. That is a matter for the Arbitration Committee. Further, there is no evidence that the issue was taken up with the blocking admin, or taken to the Administrator's Noticeboard, which should be the first stop for admin action complaints. The parties are advised to go to AN or file an RfC.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 07:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/01&oldid=1148691482"