Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/06

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

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Anti-Americanism edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

  • Massive discussions on Talk that are leading nowhere.
  • Two disinterested admins contacted: [5] [6]. The first was reverted when he attempted to intervene on the page

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Two alternate and essentially incompatible intros are being reverted over.
  • Secondarily, does picture of Guantanamo Bay belong? [It seems that a photo (a protest against torture in US prisons) has now been agreed upon Cadr 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kven users POV edit

Involved parties edit


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit


Issues to be mediated edit

  • As has been said over and over again, and as the Kven text and talk pages very clearly reveal, - despite of numerous pleas and requests - none of the other parties participating on this request for mediation page, other that the user Digi Wiki, have provided a single detailed source for their claims, e.g. a known historian, his book, the page, and an exact quote.

If any party disagrees on that very important point, they are once again asked to please provide such a quote used, from a reputable source, even just any source.

That is the very core of the problem here. Other misbehavior of the opposing parties of the user Digi Wiki has been detailed for instance on the following pages:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [18]
Talk:Kven

[[User:Digi Wiki|Digi Wiki] 08:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


  • User Digi Wiki's refusal to accept consensus to Kven-related articles


Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • The misbehavior of the users User:217.30.179.130, User:Fred chessplayer, User:Mikkalai, to which the user User:217.30.179.130 have already acknowledged guilt, also - at least partially - the user User:Fred chessplayer.
  • User Digi Wiki's general behaviour: the use of multiple sock puppets, using them to appear to be several users, abusive behaviour, abuse of talk pages.
  • The insistence on conflating two separate but related topics into one messy discussion on one of them. To wit: The historical term "kven" refers to a group of people around the Baltic Sea; these may or may not be the descendants to contemporary kvens, an ethnic minority in the north of Norway. These should be separate articles, as only one topic is actually controversial. --Leifern 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "ancestors", not "descendants". up+land 09:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]


Why do you insist in claiming that the historic Kvens "may or may not be" the ancestors of the modern-day Kvens. We continue asking you, who questions this issue among historians. Please provide a detailed and easily verifiable quote from a known historian on this topic. Otherwise, please stop bothering the Wikipedia community with foundless and false claims, which only represent you personal assumptions. You are refusing to provide such evidence or sources for your view. Isn't it clear to everyone that you are unable to do so, because your view does not match the reality.
I, on the other hand, have provided distinguished and credited sources for the true historical events and facts. The 18th and 19th century migration waves to Northern Norway alone provably originated from the historic Kvenland territories, such as the Torne River Valley, Kemi, etc. The communities from both ends of these migration waves have been provided in the Kven text, also the time peirods.
It is time for you to start providing detailed sources for your outrageous views, as the userUser:Mikkalai has clearly stated for everyone to do. Howabout even a single detailed quote from a reputable historian for starters ? Rather than mediation, we need you to start complying with the rules. Any mediator would agree. For you to state, that you do not want to get into that, simply isn't the Wikipedia way to go in cases like this. You are attempting to press your personal distorted views as facts in Wikipedia.

[[User:Digi Wiki|Digi Wiki] 08:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
  • Agree. Fred-Chess 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. `'mikka (t) 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, although I do not promise to participate very actively in future discussions.130.234.75.181 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (aka 217.130.xxx.xxx).[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: Failure of the parties to follow the instructions given, to wit, No commentary on the request. Period.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: The Last Stand edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

  • WP:RFC (I don't know)

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether a sampling of verbatim film-review quotes from notable sources such as Hollywood Reporter and Variety — placed in the article lead as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body — constitutes NPOV simply because one party is appears to be a fan of the movie and doesn't want to see negative reviews.
  • Incivility by and threats from User:Facto toward User:Tenebrae despite the latter's attempt at dialogue.
  • Whether User:Facto's basic warrants are accurate: specifically whether a mixed quote constitutes "negative"
  • Whether User:Facto has let enthusiasm for the movie and the director color his judgment toward other editors
  • Incivility and lack of good faith by User:Facto, who has intemperately thrown the words "delusion", "lying", etc., to a user who disagrees with him.
  • Wikistalking by User:Facto in which he posts my private comments to other editors on the Last Stand talk page, and edits them with boldface. --Tenebrae 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of fact re accusation below: I have no feeling one way or another toward director Brett Ratner. Though I suspect Facto is someone in Rattner's office.
  • Point of fact re another accusation below: I asked one friend to vote in Facto's poll. Not editors plural. Period. Facto himself voted in his poll three times.
  • User:Facto is attempting to goad me to a 3RR by breaking from the consensus of his own straw poll and making edits to the section under mediation, removing any criticism of the film by the likes of Variety and the NY Times. An admin has already judged his bad-faith 3RR attempt by saying, "I do not see the diffs you provided as clearcut RVs, at least not all of them. They look like regular edits. Please try to resolve content issues at talk page."
  • Facto has also left a bad-faith harrassment on my Talk page over another an inadvertent page-blanking and reposting that did not concern him, and that another editor and I User:RandomP quickly and amicably sorted out.
  • User:Faacto has made 1R at disputed section that awaits mediation, eliminating mixed/negative references to the director: Revision as of 19:54, 2 June 2006. I'm returning it to Critical reception to its disputed state pending conclusion of mediation. --Tenebrae 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether User:Tenebrae demonstrates bias and violates Wikipedia:NPOV by filling the X-Men: The Last Stand article with negative reviews and not balancing the article with positive reviews (Restatement of first issue by User:Facto)
  • Whether User:Tenebrae has made false accusations and threats against User:Facto (Restatement of second issue by User:Facto)
  • Whether User:Tenebrae's use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films guidelines as a justification to violate the WP:NPOV policy is appropriate and whether User:Tenebrae's edits on X-Men: The Last Stand actually conform with the guidelines (restatement of third issue by User:Facto)
  • Whether User:Tenebrae has let dislike for the X-Men: The Last Stand movie director color his judgment toward other editors (Restatement of fourth issue by User:Facto)
  • Incivility and lack of good faith by User:Tenebrae, who has maliciously used the words "crazed X-Men fans" and "crazed Ratner fans" to describe users who disagree with him. (Restatement of fifth issue by User:Facto)
  • Abuse of straw polls by User:Tenebrae in which he posts public comments to other editors asking them to vote for a certain choice on the Last Stand talk page. (Restatement of sixth issue by User:Facto)
  • Whether movie reviews insulting its director should be included in the X-Men: The Last Stand article

Note: Each party has a section. Parties should not edit the sections for other parties in any circumstances. Any such edits will be reverted on sight. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: Mediation requires a good faith effort by both parties to resolve the dispute. Spending the time leading up to the acceptance of a mediation looking for ways to attack the other parties is not an indication of good faith.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


External link dipute/edit war on article Belly dance/Talk:Belly dance edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether or not there is a specific limit on how many external links may be included with an article.
  • Whether or not Mel Etitis should be removing external links that follow Wikipedia guidelines just because he has made his own limit as to how many links and which links he thinks should be included.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Continued deviation from actual dispute
  • Continued accusations about the identity of User:Cassandra581

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
  • Agree. Cassandra581 07:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Amalas =^_^= 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. As we say in Texas, I don't have a dog in this hunt and will support any resolution of this issue by this process or any other. My only involvement has been to research the identity of the owner of the website in question. For reasons stated on other pages and discussions, I am convinced that Cassandra Strand (the owner) and Cassandra581 are the same person. SteveHopson 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Comments Updated)[reply]
Removal of comments (leave them for when the mediation is opened) -- Drini 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the actual term "Islamophobia" by WP editors edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Counter to the Avoid neologisms guidelines should the article be written while actually utilizing the "islamophobia" neologism outside of quotes and citations?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • In respect to this neologism's status should it have an Examples of use in public discourse section (similar to the Islamofascism) article as it does in this version or not, as in this version?

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
  • Agree as initiator of mediation demand. Netscott 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree --Irishpunktom\talk 09:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Raphael1 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the condition that Irishpunktom end his personal attacks and name-calling against me. It doesn't make any sense, and it will not be possible to discuss any such serious matters without some basic civility, and seen in the light of the very recent and very serious NPA violations, this will have to be agreed to by Irishpunktom for me to accept and spend time on any such mediation. -- Karl Meier 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't take conditional accepts; you have to either agree or disagree. You may propose conditions as a part of your continued participation once the mediation is accepted, but anything other than "Agree" is considered to be a refusal to take part. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Sample#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate: Only signatures should go here, along with either "Agree" or "Do not agree." Any additional comments will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Please indicate stright agreement, or disagreement. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as Irishpunktom indicate that he will end his personal attacks, I will remove the conditions that I have added here. He can mention that he agree to end his personal attacks here, on my talkpage or somewhere else. I doesn't matter much. But until he does indeed agree to that very basic rule I will not spend time or agree to any mediation that include him. -- Karl Meier 09:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where to put this, but whilst I haven't been directly involved in edit wars on this topic, I have a stake in how this proceeds and have interacted frequently with all the users cited on this article. If the mediation is public, I'll watch regardless, but does the mediation process make sense for (thus far) an interested observer? Nysin 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: I don't see a good faith desire to participate in mediation, and arguing with the Committee before the request has even been accepted does not instill any confidence in the success of a mediation with these parties.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer, et al. edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Kevin Baastalk 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • An addendum - I decline mediation on the matter of good faith - it seems to me a precondition for mediation, not a mediatable issue. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the arbitrators rule that Phil Sandifer gets to decide what goes in these articles, then yes, mediation is moot. But until and unless that happens it would be nice to get the opinions and involvement of some mediators. -- noosphere 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: The parties seem to have misunderstood the nature of mediation; it is a voluntary and collaborative effort. If a party is unwilling to participate, mediation cannot occur.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism et. al. edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • LGagnon is publicly calling Objectivists (me) fascists and vandalizing my comments
  • Several Objectivists are vandalizing the articles in favor of Rand. Some have made arguments that contradict the NPOV rule.
  • Debate continues over whether or not it is POV for the articles to call Objectivism a philosophy, as it is rejected by academic philosophers. This has become hostile recently, leading to more vandalism by pro-Rand editors.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • The POV tag is repeatedly removed by pro-Rand editors who claim there is no debate anymore. This goes against the rules for such tags.
  • Other lesser problems still aren't resolved. For instance, much of the Ayn Rand article's "cult" section was moved to the Objectivism article; a summary of it should be readded there.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

Please note: This section is for one thing, and one thing only: Notation of agreement to participate in the mediation. Commentary is prohibited, and will be removed. Please respect and follow Mediation Committee policy. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Rejected: The request lacks good faith on the part of the parties, as demonstrated by thier edit warring on the request itself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding Boy and nathanrdotcom (Nathan) edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: edit

Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages: edit

N/A

User talk pages: edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Long discussions on User talk:nathanrdotcom and User talk:Exploding Boy

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Nathan seems to feel that I am persecuting him. He has asked to be left alone, and I've complied with this, but we seem to run into each other here and there, since we evidently edit some of the same articles and other pages. I have assured Nathan that I bear him no ill will, and requested that he assume good faith, but seemingly to no avail. My aim with this request is to try to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of both users, so that we can get on with editing Wikipedia rather than being mired in small conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploding Boy (talk • contribs)
  • Exploding Boy's behaviour is disruptive and he refuses to comply with even the simplest request of being left alone. Constantly, he picks fights with me on both my talk page and his own. When he doesn't get what he wants, he resorts to testing the limits of my patience and attacking me, calling me incivil, etc. This is not good conflict management skills. There's this little thing called diplomacy that appears to be completely lost on him (an admin should know how to resolve conflicts). — Nathan (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

None

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. edit

Refuse. edit

I don't know where to begin on this. I refuse mediation. Exploding Boy's behaviour is disruptive and he constantly pushed and pushed me to discuss something when I didn't want to. He constantly tests the limits of my patience. Can you possibly see why I don't want to mediate anything with him?

Please see the edit history of my talk page. Several times, EB restored a section to my talk page that was deleted. He made the threat of mediation if I refused to "explain". Mediation shouldn't be used as a threat and I propose that this entire RfM be ignored/discarded. I refuse to participate. My only wish is to be left alone by EB, period, end of sentence. Easy to comprehend? Yes, I think so. Yet constantly, he refuses to listen, refuses to comply with my wishes of being left alone (period) and is disruptive on my talk page.

I have already made two reasonably worded requests to be left alone and they've been ignored:

(Do I really need to make this request a third, fourth, fifth...hundredth time?)

To all concerned: Being civil and assume good faith would mean complying with my wishes to be left alone. Attacking me for removing the RfM template (read: calling me incivil for removing it) is also incivil and does not imply any need for mediation. For the record, it doesn't make me incivil - it does make me unwilling to mediate with a difficult and disruptive user. His own behaviour paints him as disruptive and violated WP:POINT (disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, yes I do know what it means) on my talk page just last night.

"I've complied with his request" - sure. Reverting a vandalism on my user page is so coincedental. Commenting on my comment to another user's comment that he did it is really complying with my request - it's more of "I'll ignore his request when I feel like it". No. I requested to be left alone, period, regardless of whether he felt he had something to say or not.

There's a long history between me and this user. Some weeks ago, he "requested" that I change my signature, then was incivil and attacking throughout.

"Why do you have to take it as some kind of insult?" - implying that I'm at fault. Not only this but also implying that I'm paranoid and oversensitive. I may have a mood disorder but I'm not any of these things. That's not helping the situation any.

So my decision will have to be:

  • No way. Another user often tries to mediate disputes between me and EB and EB claims (in not so many words) "You have no business interfering. You don't have all the information. Don't comment about something you're not involved in." I'd like to see calm, civil (and most importantly accomodating) responses to other users who try to mediate disputes between me and EB before I go the RfM route. Thank you for your time. — Nathan (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: One of the parties refuses to mediate, and the matter isn't really a case for mediation, but rather for arbitration.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images at List of Virtual Boy games edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: edit

  • SeizureDog is the filer.
  • From the history notes: FINAL REVERT: See this talk page for FL nominat for discussion. If you continue to wish to revert you must apply for mediation.
  • Template has been placed on Ed g2s's talk page.
  • Vic Vipr is on Wikibreak; quote: "Take it up with User:Ed_g2s, taking a break."
  • Unsure if Vic Vipr is actually on Wikibreak or not. Template has been added to his talk page for good measure.

Article talk pages: edit

User talk pages: edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issue to be be mediated edit

Additional issues to be mediated edit

None

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Reject: The copyright status of images is not a matter for Mediation; it should be taken up with the Foundation's legal counsel. Whatever decision is made by the legal department should be enforced by block, and with Arbitration, if necessary.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neo-Tech edit

Involved parties edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

[43]

  • User talk pages:

[44]

Issues to be mediated edit

  • This concerns the article, Neo-Tech. Bi claims that books published by Integrated Management Associates (a company that publishes material about a philosophy called Neo-Tech) cannot be used as references for the article about Neo-Tech ("Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"), which is bizarre becase it's the only sources on the philosophy. Lest there be any doubt, WP:V plainly says: Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic. Of course you can use the books as sources about the philosophy, in the article about the philosophy! Otherwise, the article would be blank! (As an aside, I'd like to note that the company also publishes the work of other writers not associated with the company as well). Also, he sources "criticism" of Neo-Tech from web forums, self-published web pages, etc rather than from credible published sources. [45] He expressed a desire for form dispute resolution, as have I. Please assist enforcing the Wikipedia policies on sourcing. It should be pretty simple and straightforward to mediate this. Thank you. RJII 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Thank you. In addition to being self-published, the Neo-Tech literature can be considered to be "unduly self-aggrandizing", which WP:V does not allow. Besides, given that Neo-Tech literature is self-published and self-aggrandizing, it would seem unfair to use a different standard for admitting views opposed to Neo-Tech. Bi 06:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
  • Agree. RJII 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Bi 06:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

  • Accept/Reject/Extend:
For the Mediation Committee,
  • Chairman's note: Recuse from involvement. Another member of the committee will need to accept/reject the case and assign a mediator. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
NOw I see Neo-Tech is a disambiguatio npage. Which one is this mediation about? -- Drini 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Tech (philosophy) RJII 05:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that RJII has now been indefinetely blocked due to the account being shared by several users. I'd say reject. Sasquatch t|c 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most certainly. No conflict of interest there. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/06&oldid=1146738033"