Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 16 December 2005

• ]

We are the Mediation Cabal, or maybe we're not, you never know, perhaps there is no such thing. You never know with cabals now, do you? (Well, actually, chances are that we do exist; The Mediation Cabal is intended to be the alpha implementation of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation (2005) informal mediation proposal). The Mediation Cabal provides unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Misplaced Pages, and is composed of volunteers who wish to assist people in resolving conflicts.

So, what's this thing all about?

Well, we're glad you asked :-) Whereas the Mediation Committee provides "formal" mediation (officially done as per Misplaced Pages:Mediation), and the Arbitration Committee produces official resolutions and sanctions, we aren't at all official and are just normal Wikipedians. The job of the Mediation Cabal is basically to provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes without taking it through a formal channel.

Because we are unofficial, we don't impose sanctions on anyone or judge anyone's actions; we are just here to help people cool down, provide a third-person view on the matter, be nice to people and advise on how best to bring the problem to an end. And since we don't order anyone to do anything, there is nothing to lose by bringing an argument to us, and everything to gain. We're nice and laid back - no one has to argue their case or prove anything to us.

Whereas the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee "accept" or "reject" requests, we will help anyone who would like us to, so we can nip arguments in the bud before they get to a point where official intervention is necessary (unless the matter has got to the point where we can't deal with it, when we will pass it through the appropriate channels).

Basically, if you (or someone else) is engaged in a bit of a conflict with someone, things are starting to get heated (but not yet a complete nuclear meltdown), or anything else which you think a gentle hand might help with - follow the instructions below to place a request, and a friendly cabalist will be sent to your rescue.

Making a request for assistance

Communicating with the cabal in private

If you would prefer to ask the cabal to help you in private, or have matters relating to a mediation that you think would be best kept between yourself and the cabal, you can contact us in the following ways:

• Find us on the #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode.
• By the "e-mail this user" link on a cabalist's user page (if there is one)

Cabalists

Below is a list of the cabalists involved in maintaining this wiki page; please note some cabalists don't post here, but will magically rise to the call of mediation simply by having this page on their watchlists. :-)

Note to aspiring cabalists: Simply put this page on your watchlist by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of this page, and help out with anything that interests you. From time to time, you might be assigned to a particular mediation case by someone - if you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request and delegate it to someone else.

Coordinators

• Nicholas Turnbull returning temporarily to duty due to backlogue

Current cabalists

• Evilphoenix
• Jaxl
• Karmafist
• Steven McCrary
• Fernando Rizo
• Shauri
• WikiFanatic
• WGFinley
• Demi
• Kookykman
• Aranda56
• Dan100 (Talk)
• Bonaparte talk

Ye Olde Cabalists

• Inter Cabalist Emeritus hiatus due to exams
• Kelly Martin Cabalist Emerita on leave while serving on the Arbitration Committee
• Kim Bruning Cabalist Emeritus retired

Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation

For archive of some Mediation Cabal cases that have been closed, see Closed Case Archives: Closed Cases Archive 1

Distributed Concurrent Versions System

Request made by (please sign below):

Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Distributed Concurrent Versions System

Who's involved?

User:Just zis Guy, you know? User:Elego

What's going on?

User:Elego created Distributed Concurrent Versions System; I redirected to Concurrent Versions System because it seems to me (as an outsider) that DCVS is essentially VCS with a small if significant feature extension. I left comments on the talk page and on the user talk page explaining it. Elego (which is, purely by coincidence, the name of the ocmpany which markets DCVS) reverted that redirect with no discussion at all. Before I get into an edit war, I'd like someone else to look in and see if this genuinely merits an additional article. I think not, since the functionality is substantially identical and DCVS is based on CVS, but others might have other ideas.

What would you like to change about that?

See above

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Happy to be open, User talk:Just zis Guy, you know? or Talk:Distributed Concurrent Versions System is fine.

Mediator response

Conflicts w/8bitJake

Request made by (please sign below): badlydrawnjeff 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

...

A variety of places: Morgan Spurlock, Debbie Schlussel in particular, although a similar episode occurred at Republican Party (United States).

Who's involved?

...

8bitJake, mostly conflicting with me since two articles I'm busy on happen to be the ones he's busting.

What's going on?

...

Jake adds POV information, occasionally entire POV sections, tries to remove criticisms of those he agrees with, and then accuses those who call him on it of...you guessed it, POV editing and whitewashing of criticism. A handful of rules broken in the process, at least one page protected over it.

What would you like to change about that?

...

I'd like to figure out a way to make sure these edit wars can cease when a person who won't otherwise respond to legitimate reason (on the surface, at least) is involved.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Userpage and e-mail is fine, but keep it open if at all possible.

Mediator response

Comments by others

Put the name of your case here

Request made by (please sign below):

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

...

Who's involved?

...

What's going on?

...

What would you like to change about that?

...

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Mediator response

Comments by others

Comments by others

I don't understand why DCVS must redirect to CVS, so I've hopped in and made a comment. (Not acting as a mediator here). Kim Bruning 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Because as far as I can see DCVS is a product which is based on CVS, and I am uneasy about the fact that it was created by a user whose username is the same as the company selling DCVS, and the article links to DCVS, and the fact that 90%+ of the functionality is already covered in CVS. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to the fact that most of the features are covered in CVS, but it's still a different system. I'd keep an eye on the article; it's okay as per the last version IMO, but considering that the comapany that developed DCVS has the same name as the user that wrote the article, I'm kind of wondering if it'll turn out to be an ad sometime in the near future. Bjelleklang 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

French accent

Request made by (please sign below):

AEuSoes1 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

French section of non-native pronunciations of English

Who's involved?

Myself and Agateller

What's going on?

An edit war. He and I disagree about edits that he insists on including. His original inclusion had some edits that I agreed with and others that I did not; I kept the ones I agreed with and the ones I didn’t I removed. He put them back in and although we exchanged a few messages to outline our points, he stopped the discussion when I moved the discussion to the talk page and continued placing his edits in even though I have reverted them and asked him to build a consensus before including his changes.

What would you like to change about that?

I have asked him to either build a consensus, provide some sort of adequate source for his edits (he says he is his own source but knows of many sources), or refrain from including the edits that I have been reverting. This is only on the factual statements that he includes. There is also an issue of the way his edits describe the features that I believe unnecessarily describes accent features as absolutes rather than tendencies and I would rather his edits conform in style to the rest of the article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

You don't need to work discreetly.

Mediator response

Comments by others

anal sex article - explicit draw

Request made by (please sign below): --Alberto msr 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Anal sex article and at the talk page topic http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture

Who's involved?

alberto_msr, Appleboy and Dpark

What's going on?

There is a explicit sexual draw in the article (a woman inserting a strap-on dildo in a guy's anus), which does not comply with Misplaced Pages's Profanity policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Profanity).

For more info on my argument, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture

The policy says: A taboo image shall not be posted unless it is essential for the article to be understood. I removed the picture and Appleboy user reverted. I reverted Appleboy's change, so the article didn't have the picture anymore. Now Dpark reverted it and the article has the picture now. I'm avoiding to create a revert-war. We need some opinion whether the image is appropriated or not.

What would you like to change about that?

Maybe lock the article or block image upload in the article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

On my talk page

Mediator response

Comments by others

user:KJVTRUTH this is a public site, not a Credit Card Pay for Porn Site. The Image of nude Woman, with a strap on giving it to a Man is PORNOGRAPHY and has no place where Children could see it. I recommend it be removed "NOW" and the person who placed it be strongly warned of EVER doing such a thing again. And if it is ever done by that person again, they should face a lifetime ban. A second picture further down is also Pornogrpahic with a caption that reads "Suzuki Harunobu, Shunga." All my comments seconded for this also. If it is possible their ISP should also be notified that their service is being used to post pornography in public view where Children may see it.

Conspiracy Theory

Request made by (please sign below):

Kim Bruning 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Apparently at Talk:Conspiracy theory. I spotted the request for assistence at this unusual location, however.

Who's involved?

Hmm, zen master and tom harrison are the folks requesting assistence, by the look of it.

What's going on?

They're saying that majoritanism might be overruling NPOV.

What would you like to change about that?

Try to ensure the page sticks to NPOV

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Try talking with the folks above first.

Mediator response

I gave zen-master a way to fix the problem awhile ago on his talk page, but it looks like he's still at it. Take anything with him and that article with a grain of salt. karmafist 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

NEW SECTION - Alienus and Lokley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind

Request made by (please sign below):

Alienus 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

On a number of pages concerning philosophy of the mind, particularly those involving Daniel Dennett and ideas related to his theories. Specific hot-spots include Consciousness, Cartesian materialism, Cartesian theater, and Multiple Drafts Model.

Who's involved?

Me and loxley.

What's going on?

I found a number of gaps, as well as factual and bias errors on these pages, so I've worked to fix them, contributing substantial new material and providing references. Loxley disagrees with my changes and keeps reverting or damaging them in various ways. We're at the point where he just reverted a few pages of my work without comment.

It appears that Loxley strongly supports one warring camp of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, so his changes are largely focused on defining Dennett as negatively as possible. Besides the excess POV, he does not possess a clear understanding of Dennett's work, so he's also making numerous factual errors. I've done my best to merge in whatever good parts he's added, clarify things that could be misunderstood and generally put together better pages. His counter-changes started off as reasonable if flawed, but have progressed to simple vandalism.

I've tried to discuss this with him, but it has not been productive. From my point of view, he's been argumentative, unresponsive and very deeply biased. I've lost respect for him, and now just consider him a heckler who doesn't even understand what he's heckling at. I suspect that he found me impatient and, from where he stands, partisan. I freely admit that I am entirely out of patience with him, and he could probably point out responses where I failed to control my anger, especially after he started erasing key parts of pages just because he disagrees with them.

What would you like to change about that?

I want this this edit war to stop before it even gets into its full swing and triggers automatic protections against reverts. I'm quite willing to accept unbiased and supported changes by him., but I'm not willing to stand by while he ignorantly pisses on Dennett. I'm angry and disgusted.

Ideally, I would like to come to some mutual agreement so we can both positively participate in making these pages better. Precisely because he is so fond of people like Chalmers and Block, he could add balance by reporting on their views. However, as things stand, his contributons are of negative net value.

It may well be that our personalities class and he's more reasonable when dealing with other people. It may well be that I'm particularly impatient with him because I perceive him as intentionally damaging my work. If so, then a third party might be able to resolve this.

If not, then it's going to come down to blocking one or both of us from changing these and related pages, at least until this calms down.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'm not particularly concerned about discretion. I can be reached most conveniently by email, but you could also write to my talk page. If it helps, I ask me by email for my AIM account name. I'm located in the Eastern Standard Time zone.

Mediator response

Comments by others

NEW SECTION - Word (disambiguation)

Request made by: Shinobu

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Word (disambiguation)

Who's involved?

I am, as well as Mihai cartoaje, jiy, Kusma, R. S. Shaw, Gimboid13.

What's going on?

There is a disagreement as to whether Microsoft Word should be on the list. Mihai in particular thinks it's wrong to have MS Word on the list. See the talk page for all opinions and details.

What would you like to change about that?

I would appreciate it if we could somehow work out who is right or perhaps find another solution so that we don't have to revert each other continuously.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

On my user talk page is plenty discreet enough.

Mediator response

Comments by Others

Why not have a link on the disambiguation page that points to a list of computer programs that have word in their name or something like that? - Squilibob 10:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would need to be located on a separate page, but at least it's an objective criterium. Shinobu 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NEW SECTION - Natalinasmpf on Communism

From: User:BostonMA

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Communism

Who's involved?

Natalinasmpf vs myself User:BostonMA

What's going on?

Edit war

Repeated removals of "disputed" tags prior to resolution of disupted issues

Repeated removal of statements which are backed by verifiable sources which cast doubt on the statements in the current text which lack verifiable sources, are "original research", are not neutral point of view, and in my opinion, just plain wrong.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like statements for which there are no verifiable sources, i.e. "Original research" removed. I would also like Natalinasmpf to abide by the 3 revert policy. I would also like Natalinasmpf to respect the posting of "disputed" tags until factual disputes have been resolved. After the factual issues are resolved, I would like to make edits to remove biased point of view.

One specific issue that I would like to see addressed is the following. The text of the "Under the Commintern" section contains the statements:

Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to their ideological mission, to create a working class itself.

For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established.

Taken without any other context, the statement: "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place." is true. Without any other context, the statement says nothing about Marx's theory regarding revolutions where capitalist development was not the most advanced or where a large working class was not in place. However, in the context in question, the statement was obviously meant to be a statement of contrast between what Marx believed regarding revolutions "where capitalist development was most advanced" and Russia. The implicit meaning is something along the lines of "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur *earlier* where capitalist development was the most advanced, and *later* where it was not so advanced.

The idea that the latter result is a consequence of Marx's theory is "original research" and is not supported by verifiable sources. However the contrary idea, namely that a Russian revolution could provide a signal for workers revolution in the West, (that is precede revolutions in countries where capitalist development was most advanced) is documented at

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

I would like to make a comment regarding the editting of the Communism page in general. The editting history, as well as the talk, shows that a small group of individuals, including Natalinasmpf have taken it upon themselves to be the guardians of the existing page, and act to thwart any independent editting. This could be either good or bad depending upon circumstances. Misplaced Pages has espoused the goals of Verifiability, No "Original Research" and Neutral Point of View. These goals, together with the ability of countless individuals to make contributions to Misplaced Pages provide the basis for something truly great, something truly better than existing encyclopedias. I frequent the Math sections of Misplaced Pages, and note that already the math sections of Misplaced Pages are more extensive, and hence more useful than the encyclopedias which were available to me in my younger days.

The group which has taken virtual posession of the Communism page, however, appear to want to drag Misplaced Pages back toward the Encyclopedias of yesteryear. Encyclopedia Britannica is cited as a model. However, the older encyclopedias were commercial undertakings. As commercial undertakings they often reduced content for the sake of cutting costs. But perhaps more importantly, as commercial undertakings, they were subject to the influences of politics. In my opinion, this led to a significant lack of neutrality in their articles on political subjects. Blocking the appearance of verifiable facts which challenge the nice tidy narratives told in some articles might give the appearance of being more "encyclopedic", but in reality is an obstacle to the development of objective, verifiable articles. For this reason, I would hope that a mediator will give suggestions to this group that they take a friendlier view towards the inclusion of information which is supported by verifiable sources, and take a harsher look at narratives that may seem to be the "consensus" of their group, which may tell a pleasing story, but which are not supported by factual evidence.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

n/a

-- User:BostonMA

Mediator response

• Wait. I actually read the one issue. The wording is a tad bulky. :-/ Hmm, so basically you'd like to remove some bias from the communism article, but the article is gaurded? Kim Bruning 14:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for looking at this so soon -- I see the waiting list for mediation is quite long. I would write on your user-discussion page, but I see you are busy with your dissertation. Good luck. Sorry for the wordiness. The article is block now because of an edit war, and that is what I was hoping for help with. Thank you again, but I hope someone else has some time available. (BostonMA 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Comments by others

NEW SECTION - Stub Ownership and Rudeness

Request made by (please sign below):

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

...Minor Violations of WP:NPA,WP:AGF Violations of WP:OWN

Who's involved?

...Grutness, some others.

What's going on?

...Grutness & the stub regulars have broken WP:OWN in regards to basically the entire stub sorting system (WP:SFD,etc.) through what i've seen, and I assume he thinks that my dislike for the instruction creep over there smacks of WP:POINT.

What would you like to change about that?

...Just to put in stubs in peace without having to go to some sub-sub page to see if I need to capitalize a letter or not or to put in a space or not or a hyphen or not or to a abbreviate something or not.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...I don't care either way. Talk page works fine.

Mediator response

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (subnational entities)

Request made by (please sign below):

William Allen Simpson 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (subnational entities)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (subnational entities)

Who's involved?

User:Tobias_Conradi offender

User:Golbez, User:WilliamAllenSimpson

What's going on?

(Mr/Ms) Conradi has been Vandalizing the page by changing the names of proposals, "Nasty editting", massively modifying others' entries in successive steps numbering in the dozens, and reverting and moving the pages. Administrator action has made 8 deleted edits to correct this problem (so far).

In addition, on the Project talk page, Conradi has engaged in personal attacks, name calling, comparing to "genocid", etc. I've posted the levels of WP:VIP warning on her/his talk page, and presumably Golbez has done the same, but it's quickly deleted there.

What would you like to change about that?

Folks would like to make substantive contributions on a Proposed Guideline page. The easiest solution would be for this disruptor to be banned for life, as apparently s/he has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere -- but for now, just leaving folks alone in this one place would be helpful in the short run.

I brought it here first, as there might be a serious language impediment or cultural difference. There have been obvious lapses in Conradi's English language skills (probably en-1, unlikely en-2, certainly not the self-reported en-3). William Allen Simpson

On a hunch, I checked against de.wiki as that's listed on Conradi's user page as a native language. It may not be a language problem. Possible personality disorder. S/he's got deleted pages there, too — although not as many as the 271 to date here. William Allen Simpson 12:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Oh, it's too late to be discrete, Project talk page is fine (but Google is your friend)....

Mediator response

Comments by others

NEW SECTION - Biography for Jim Hightower

Request made by (please sign below):

--Randomdeanna 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Jim Hightower

Who's involved?

Me (geek for Hightower); Laura74 (Hightower's research manager); anonymous user at IP 12.217.121.245

What's going on?

Laura and I are trying to correct inaccuracies about who Hightower has and hasn't endorsed. User at above IP address puts things back in after we remove them. We understand that people want to contribute to the bio page, but not only is the info just plain wrong, the user then left an unwarranted nasty comment for Laura on the Talk page (after she left the user a nice note on user's talk page). User has a history of participating/instigating edit wars.

What would you like to change about that?

It's now at the edit-war stage, and I'd like to get this resolved so that the three of us don't just keep reverting each others' edits and wasting time.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

N/A

Mediator response

Comments by others

Was Jefferson a Mason?

Request made by (please sign below):

--SarekOfVulcan 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

List of Freemasons

Who's involved?

Primarily User:SarekOfVulcan and User:KJVTRUTH

What's going on?

Current Masonic scholarship says that despite past belief, Thomas Jefferson was never actually a Freemason. Many Masonic sites, though, have not quite caught up with that, unfortunately. I (and others) am trying to keep him off the List of Freemasons -- KJVTRUTH is trying just as hard to put him back on.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like him to agree with me, naturally. :-) Failing that, I'd like an outside view of the dueling cites, to see which is more relevant for the purposes of this article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

No particular discretion necessary, but my email is linked to my account.

Mediator response

Comments by others

from user:KJVTRUTH , I have in my possesion a (1955 Masonic Bible) that lists Presidents who have been Masons. It plainly states on the Page for Thomas Jefferson "there are unmistakable evidences that he was an active Mason" The bible also on the page lists his involvement with the laying of the Corner Stone for Central College in 1817, He is listed by Charlottsville Lodge No. 90 as a visitor present at these ceremonies. "Masons" of today do not want to call Thomas Jefferson a brother, possibly because of his who founded the Illuminati. Wanting someone to NOT be a Mason Today, can't change the fact they were one in the past.

Following is what I would like to have listed for Thomas Jefferson on the list of freemasons page

• Thomas Jefferson, 2nd U.S. Vice President, Served under Adams, Charlottesville Lodge No. 90, Charlottesville, VA : Jefferson was also a member of the Lodge of the Nine Muses in Paris and the Beenan Order (Order of the Bees) known outside Bavaria as the Illuminati.

1955 Masonic Bible source1,

to User:SarekOfVulcan, from user:KJVTRUTH : For now, since this issue as far as posting Jefferson on Misplaced Pages seems to be of little interest to anyone but you, or I; I leave his fate on the list for you to render judgement. I after remembering (Psalm 1) from the bible must not stand between you and the truth, nor sit in judgement over what you choose to believe. Feel free to remove this item from the Cabal after you decide.

Actually, I'm sure there are many folks interested, the Cabal just seems to have gone on hiatus. Probably User:Kestenbaum is very interested for the Political Graveyard. Please have both sides clearly stated with nice external references!

I put my three references on the Talk page: I can copy them here as well if you think it would be useful.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues with Skinwalker

Request made by (please sign below):

Canaen 07:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

My talk page occasionally, Talk:Veganism, and Skinwalker's talk page, particularly User talk:Skinwalker#Veganism RfC. It could soon spread to Environmental vegetarianism.

Who's involved?

Myself, Skinwalker. Very possibly Idelguy and Viriditas, though nto as of yet.

What's going on?

There's been quite a bit of nonsense going on at Veganism lately. I was absent for the article for quite awhile, and recently returned with a bit more permanence. It appears I returned at a rough time, fresh out of a recent protection. Disputed content was found, and removed until a discussion could take place (which didn't occur). Incessant reverting occurred, resulting in another protection of the page. Accusations arose between myself and another user. Then, one more came in supporting the other. In the process, Skinwalker decided decided to jump on the wagon, and make false accusations of myself, Nidara and several anonymous users. Finally, we (Francis, Nidara and Myself managed to organize a clear, proper consensus vote to get the page restored, and other users jumped in as well. Once this was near completion, Skinwalker came back, requesting an RfC before a request to remove the protection, and filed the request. I dated the request, and updated the status of the situation. Skinwalker then accused me of vandalism, and threatened to report me as a vandal. See for that matter. All the while, he didn't contribute to the process of getting the article running again; he simple hindered it (from mine and others' positions, at least).

What would you like to change about that?

Frankly, I have a bit of fear instilled in me from the words of Skinwalker, past words, and of an apparently related group of users. I have every reason to believe that as soon as I make an attempt to report any of them for Wikicrimes, incivility, personal attacks, or harassment, they will instantly accuse me of the same (this has been done to me by them), and report me in kind. I'm not sure if any of them would be able to delete/hide my report while they do so. I'd like to be able to work on Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism without this harrassment. I dislike banning users; it doesn't usually help the encyclopedia. Everyone has something to contribute. I simply want peace. If there's nothing that can be done, I might be forced to attempt use of official paths, and I don't want that. I hope that the Mediation Cabal can help.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Yes, I think that would be best at present. My email is: uuconpunk at gmail.com I also use AIM frequently: anarchopunk17 As well, I am Canaen on freenode.IRC, and when I'm on I try to maintain a presence in the Misplaced Pages channel, though usually inactively.

Mediator response

Comments by others

I would like to respond to these points. Canaen is currently blocked for making personal attacks and for orchestrating a meatpuppet campaign to eliminate criticism of veganism from the Veganism article. See his talk page, my talk page, and Talk:Veganism for details. Among other things, I have been called a liar, a snitch, and a "meat-eater activist". Idleguy's user page was vandalized with a threatening message advocating a "vegan jihad". I am in the process of filing a request for comment on his conduct, and I have already filed a request for comment on the Veganism article in an effort to break the deadlock. These accusations are baseless, and represent another instance of him harassing editors with whom he disagrees.

This user has refactored his talk page to move content critical of him, including administrator warnings, to a subpage labeled "nonsense". I am open to mediation, but I am not sure it will solve anything. This user is editing in bad faith. He interprets any criticism of himself or his views, no matter how polite, as a personal attack. The accusations that he makes above are baseless. I really resent the fact that he acts like he is somehow afraid of me, especially considering his behavior elsewhere. Any mediation that occurs must be between him, me, and the other parties that have been subject to personal attacks such as Idleguy, and must be done on the condition that all personal attacks and meatpuppetry have stopped. Regards, Skinwalker 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

JT LeRoy: Does he exist?

Request made by: Animated Cascade 11:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

JT LeRoy and Talk:JT LeRoy

Who's involved?

User:83.249.212.92

User:Grilledcheese

IslandGyrl

others?

What's going on?

The people (and potential sockpuppets) editing the article in question seem to be strictly divided into two camps: those who believe the subject exists, and those who believe he doesn't. What has happened over the course of the last three months or so is that the same people are reverting the same things over and over; they don't seem to ever quite break the 3RR, but they get close. I began editing the article only recently, and I have essentially no loyalty to either camp. However, some of the faulty logic that others are using (e.g., "person A doesn't confirm that person B exists, therefore person B doesn't exist") is severely unencyclopedic.

What would you like to change about that?

Ideally, I'd like to see an agreement made regarding exactly what information is included in the article, how it is phrased (there are POV issues, such as the word "Hoax" instead of "Controversy regarding identity" as a header, and even mentioning the "hoax" itself in the first paragraph), etc. The subject of the article, JT LeRoy, is an acknowledged author with books available in nearly any bookstore; regardless of any doubts about his authenticity, calling the subject of an article a "hoax" in the first paragraph has no place on Misplaced Pages.

In coming to the Mediation Cabal, I'm asking someone to step in to offer guidance to all the editors of the article (myself included) about how to resolve these issues, or whether a formal mediation would be in order.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

My own talk page is fine, but if you'd prefer to tag onto the article talk page, by all means do.

Mediator response

Comments by others

Down to Earth Computer Science

Request made by (please sign below):

— Dzonatas 06:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

• Computer science
• Talk:Computer science
• Talk:Computer science/Archive 2
• User_talk:Dzonatas
• User_talk:Powo

Who's involved?

• User:Dzonatas
• User:Powo

What's going on?

We want to progress on the article, but the nature of edits have become technically challenged among each wikipedian. I've seen what shuold be verifiable and reputable sources material being substituted for personal knowledge and, at times, personal attacks. For example, Powo claimed that computer science is rooted with mathematics and is therefore computer science is not a science, or that mathematics is foundation of computer science and not a fundamental study in due course. Another example is the bounds for the body of knowledge that defines computer science, which lacks a definite consensus among published sources. Powo states that computer scientist know what is computer science, and the article should be written by computer scientist. At the same time, Powo suggests that I have less expertise then him because of Powo's stated credentials. We further need to settle on an opener for the article, but, more importantly, we really need article-body content.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to:

• avoid Powo's (and others) personal attacks by the use of a mediator.
• solve the matter over the definition. Use the basic foundation of computer science from published sources, like a thesis, which state the intention. This avoids modern dictionarys or encyclopedias that have no common consensus.
• settle the matter about the roots of computer science (similar to previous goal) as to how mathematics (and more?) fits into it.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Most of this shouldn't need to be discreet. Otherwise, use my e-mail.

Mediator response

Comments by others

Vizcarra and Mailyn

Request made by (please sign below):

Mailyn 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

... Mario Cimarro and Cesar Evora

Who's involved?

... Vizcarra and Mailyn

What's going on?

... It's quickly becoming an edit war on both these subjects. It's a well known fact that both these actors were born and raised in Cuba to Cuban parents. To state in the intro that they are "Mexican actors" is misleading. Yes they did relocate to Mexico and are now Mexican citizens but this should be in the body of the bio (as it is stated already there). The intro to most of the people in Wiki state where the person is from (born) or where their parents are from (if relevant). "Mexican actor" as such clearly implies either: 1.born in Mexico or 2.born to Mexican parents. I don't see why there should be a problem with stating in the intro that they are "Cuban actors who have relocated to Mexico" or something similar. If Nicole Kidman decides to relocate and naturalize to China will we change her intro to say "chinese actress"?

What would you like to change about that?

... The intro of both these actors are misleading. I am all for something like such and such "is a Cuban actor residing in Mexico" or something similar.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

... I've no problems being out about this since all I want is for the correct information to be displayed in Wiki as this will help anyone looking for info on these actors. I am trying to avoid an edit war so I've contacted you in hopes of getting someone who will not be biased on this subject.

Mediator response

Comments by others

Archstanton/chocolateboy edit war

Request made by (please sign below):

--Archstanton 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Chav and Talk:Chav, it appears that chocolateboy has been following me round to revert edits made by me in other articles too.

Who's involved?

chocolateboy and myself

What's going on?

I'm having trouble with one individual editor called chocolateboy who is very protective of 'his' page on Chav. First I was accused of 'spamming' by adding a link that does not remotely fit the Misplaced Pages definition for spamming, although I conceded that the link did not particularly merit inclusion and let that go. A couple of days later, I added a contribution to the "chav" page that he promptly reverted out, claiming that it was 'bogus' and unsourced. It was in fact sourced from the BBC, which was clearly cited, and the matter of it being 'bogus' was purely his POV. An "edit war" ensued and again I conceded, posting a conciliatory message in the talk page (see 'Stereotype'). His response was rude, patronising and inflammatory. He said he made the edit because "I don't like spam", which was utterly irrelevant to the edit in question. By dredging up past issues that were irrelevant to the discussion in hand, he was indicating that he was motivated at least partly by a personal grudge. He also commented that I had "been on for a fortnight and had already been in two edit wars". Actually, I have simply changed my name and have been a Misplaced Pages editor since early 2004 without incident. He forgot to include that both of those edit wars were with him and he appears to have a long, long history of edit wars.

What would you like to change about that?

Having looked at chocolateboy's talk page and other contributions, he seems to have a history of overbearing and belligerent behaviour towards other Wikipedians, recently taunting someone else who complained about his POV edits with "bring it on" (see 'Chav and Ali G' in User talk:Chocolateboy). I want it to be made clear to him that nobody "owns" Misplaced Pages pages and told to sort his attitude out or have his ability to make POV edits limited or revoked altogether.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'm happy for it to be conducted in the open. However, I can be contacted via my talk page or via email if it makes matters easier.

Mediator response

Comments by others

SWD316 User Page

Request made by (please sign below):

Mcfly85 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

User:SWD316

Who's involved?

User:Mcfly85 and User:SWD316

What's going on?

For some reason, SWD316 feels that I am a sockpuppet (which is totally false) and that I have vandalized his page. He has left some comments about me on his user page that attack me and are not true in the slightest bit. I have asked him very nicely to remove the comments about me, but he refuses. I feel this violates the personal attacks official policy on wikipedia, and I am insulted that I have had my user name slandered on this page with various users calling me a troll, vandal, "asshole", and sockpuppet, which are not true at all.

What would you like to change about that?

I simply would like the materials about me to be removed from SWD316's user page. Nothing more or less.

Mediator response

Comments by others

Tell me were there is one personal attack directed towards you on my user page? SWD316 17:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: As far as I know, SWD316 has not accused you of being a sockpuppet, but of owning sockpuppets. There is a difference. Banes 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution