Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 05

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

172 (Sam Spade, Lir, WHEELER)

[1], Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172. I'm not really sure what else to do, complete behaviour and communication breakdown. I'm pretty sure he won't agree to mediation, but I'm also not sure if quick poll is is the answer. Suggestions, etc.. please. Sam Spade 06:53, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is a note I left angela in regards to this subject. Sam Spade 17:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) (copied below)

From user talk:Angela: Feel free to check it if you like, its at the top of my talk page. I get so much mail I have to archive regularly. And no, no one has responded other than you. I think the request for mediation is a bad idea, but it was really the only thing I could think of in order to get some assistance and be compatable with policy, w/o trying to push a quickpoll (which I think may be the real soloution). He has exceeded the 3 revert policy after having been warned talk:fascism, w warning on his talk, now deleted (he deletes everything I put on his talk page w no response other than 'troll' in the edit summary), been unwilling to accept consesnsus regarding his Talk:Fascism/suggested readings, has been abusive both in talk and in edit summaries, and has generally been a horrorshow to deal w. On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172 there is evidence that this is nothing new, and apparently is his standard. I wouldn't know, my only previous experience w him prior to this was pleasent, agreeing w him about a page he nominated as brilliant prose, and mildly asking him to tone it down when he insulted someones reading abilities, etc.. when they objected to a different article he had listed there. Anyhow the problem is big, mediation w me alone will not help much of anything, and I am mainly looking for advice. Sorry if I went about it the wrong way. Let me know what you think. Sam Spade 17:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the matter does not seem to rise to the level of emergency it is unlikely Jimbo will refer it for arbitration. In the meantime try mediation. It is unlikely any quickpoll remedy would be appropriate. He need to talk a bit about manners. Mediation is ideal for that. Abitration (from which I would have to recuse myself) is likely to be inconclusive anyway. Fred Bauder 18:17, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks much for the advice/info. I wasn't thinking arbitration because I didn't want him banned {same reason I avoided a quickpoll) I just want him to play nice. I don't know him very well, but unless he is a complete nutter and making up info, he appears to be well read, perhaps even a teacher of some sort. I get the impresion that if we got past the rule breaking and anti-social stuff, he'd be a brilliant part of a team of editors working on a given page. I'm happy to be the one to mediate w him {assuming he is willing, which I doubt) but I want to be clear that it isn't in regards to anything personal between me and him {at least not that I know of) but rather just the overall difficulties expressed in links above. Sam Spade 20:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm so mean and unreasonable. I won't accept the fictional genre on WP. I oppose the use of talk pages as political chat rooms. I don't like the idea of users hijacking the fascism-related talk pages and turning them into chat rooms. Why not download Yahoo Messenger or another program with chat rooms?

There are other cranks on WP who prefer non-fiction too. These are two comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172 that Sam Spade hasn't been frantically cutting and pasting:

This is getting ridiculous. I do not always agree with 172, but his work is unarguably informed and scholarly. Neither Sam Spade nor WHEELER have shown any attempt toward serious scholarship that would stand up in a first year poli sci classroom, so they have transformed this into an ad hominem attack fest. Danny 00:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see so its not a politically motivated witch hunt at all then. "Is that a flying pig I see" G-Man 00:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is another episode of little knowledge, strong opinions, and a lot of noise on WP. After 16 months on this site, this gets more boring than frustrating over time.

However, there are certain contributors who greatly compensate for these regrettable aspects of WP. I wish that I could deal with them more often, instead of the users trolling articles, settling scores, and getting irate when someone scraps their loopy POV rants. 172 11:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172 has declined to participate in mediation. Tuf-Kat 09:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

I also request mediation with 172. If he rejects it, then Jimbo should be informed that he has refused mediation with two people. Lirath Q. Pynnor

maybe he can be mediated by himself? all I know is this guy needs a good talking to, he is making things alot more difficult for alot of people, and is clearly not big on following policy. Sam Spade 19:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can be "mediated by himself". Mediators are not here to give people a "talking to". Only arbitrators can do that. Angela . 22:00, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, from what I have seen arbitrators are only called apon for serious matters, banning folks or whatnot. Also I thought only Jimbo could refer people to an arbitrator. What do you suggest I do if my goal is for 172 to have a good talking to by somebody he has to listen to? Sam Spade 23:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nobody that he has to listen to. Thus, your goal is thwarted. Tuf-Kat 23:31, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it that me and Sam have to "listen" to people, but 172 doesn't? Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 / WHEELER

I object strongly of 172 editing my comments out of Talk:Fascism and moving them to Talk:Henri Bergson. This is insane. I am finding out that anytime I post and anything, a certain group of people go around and edit revert, obscure what I have to say. This is NONSENSE. There is no purpose of moving my comments out of Talk:Fascism and putting them in Talk:Henri Bergson.

I titled a section in Fascim Philosophical Origins of Fascism. Slrubenstein has edited it out twice. Mussolini coined the term let him define the sources of fascism. This is idiotic. These people need to be reined in. Please can I get some help from the people running this site. Fascism is defined solely by Mussolini and the Philosophy that guided him. I want the title to remain: The Philosophical Origins of Fascism. Is this too hard?WHEELER 17:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, as you can see -- there is a growing minority of us who have similar viewpoints and we are systematically being denied NPOV because of the cabal of supersysops. Lirath Q. Pynnor

clarification of current situation requested by sannse (talk) 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

request withdrawn [2] -- sannse (talk) 14:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:ChrisO, User:Levzur

I am requesting mediation concerning an interminable edit war on Zviad Gamsakhurdia (history). Despite a clear consensus following a request for community consensus, User:Levzur has persisted in deleting a section of the article that he does not like in order to impose his own POV, often dishonestly marking his edits as minor "corrections". This has been ongoing since December 2003 and the article has already had to be protected five times by sysops. He has also been quickbanned for 24 hours for reverting the article literally dozens of times and has been warned by several sysops to behave himself. However, he has ignored the community consensus and the warnings and has resumed reverting the article (seven times in the past 24 hours, six times in the past 90 minutes alone). He has already been informed of the Wikipedia reversion policy and clearly has no intention of following it.

I should add that the section in question was originally written by myself, but subsequently rewritten by User:MyRedDice. I am making this request on the basis of being the original author but others may wish to join as co-requesters.

Levzur is unlikely to agree to mediation or compromise, given his rejection or ignoral of every approach from myself and other editors and sysops. However, in the interests of "ticking the box" before moving on to arbitration, I would like to request mediation anyway. -- ChrisO 22:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Initial contact by Angela at User talk:Levzur on 22 April.

Levzur wrote the following on my talk page. I assume this means he does not consent to mediation, but someone might want to clarify. Angela . 01:53, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Angela,

Thank you very much for your message.

Unfortunately, "Wikipedia" is not a true Encyclopedia and dear administrators of this "Encyclopedia" are not encyclopedists! The so-called "principles" of "Wikipedia" are idiotic. I am scientist, historian and main principles for me are the principle of historism and impartial description of historical facts and events!

With kind regards,

Levzur (Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze)

Tbilisi, April 23, 2004

I think that's pretty clearly a rejection of mediation. Thanks for your assistance, Angela - it's very much appreciated. If nobody else has any objections, I will now take this to arbitration. -- ChrisO 14:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification of this message -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've held off making an arbitration request for now. Levzur's comments to Angela and on the ZG talk page suggest that he doesn't agree with the NPOV policy. If that's the case mediation would seem to be impossible, but if you can get it underway I would be more than happy. -- ChrisO 23:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Levzur has continued to edit without responding to two requests for clarification of his message. This is, in my opinion, a clear rejection of mediation -- sannse (talk) 09:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, sannse and Angela, for your efforts. I'm sorry they proved unsuccessful. I've now made an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ChrisO,_User:Levzur