Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-19 JPG-GR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
User:JPG-GR and User:Neutralhomer
[edit] What's going on?
(carried over from here) (see also [1] for a previous mediation case)
User:Neutralhomer has violated both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in regards to my edits. He has made personal attacks against me ([2]), accused me of vandalism ([3]), and accused me of sockpuppetry ([4]).
More specifically, he has accused me of making improper moves (see [discussion on my talk page]), despite the fact that he is unable to provide any evidence of these moves (which I didn't even make). User:Natalie Erin tried to explain to User:Neutralhomer ([5]) that these moves aren't present in the log, but User:Neutralhomer continues to accuse me of these moves. He has repeatedly today referred to discussions with me as "like talking to a brick wall", but refuses to acknowledge the logs which I have pointed out to him in my defense ([6]).
Additionally, he has yet to produce any evidence for his sockpuppetry allegation (noted above). As there has been no evidence provided (and there is none to provide), I presume that it was meant as a personal attack, and nothing more.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
I would like an apology from User:Neutralhomer. We were previously both members of WP:WPRS, and we both were working toward a common goal -- granted, from two different paths and with disagreements along the way. His accusations of me attempting to vandalize Wikipedia in any way are a personal attack that is completely unfounded.
As there is no evidence to support his claims, an apology is the only appropriate option. I have no intention to ask for a ban on him, brief or otherwise, as I have commented many times that when User:Neutralhomer is editing content, he is a very productive editor. However, if he refuses to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, especially in relation to myself, I do believe a brief ban may be in order. I have learned that a brief time away from Wikipedia to clear one's head is often the best medicine. Thank you for your time. - JPG-GR 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator notes
[edit] Administrative notes
[edit] Discussion
If I may, anyone who demands an apology and then demands I be blocked, is not himself interested in Mediation, sounds almost like revenge. As such, I see no reason to participate in this. If the "demands" change, then I will be more than happy to participate. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... pretty sure I didn't demand for you to be blocked. WP:AGF. JPG-GR 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- "I do believe a brief ban may be in order", under the "What would you like to change about that?" section...? Again, if you want to take that out (because "apology" and "ban" don't mix), I will be more than happy to participate. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not denying what I wrote (never have, never will). I didn't demand anything - you may want to reread what I wrote and assume good faith. If you refuse to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I believe you should be banned. That being said, that's a completely separate matter from the apology I'm owed. (1) I'm owed a apology for all your false allegations and (2) all editors must follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. JPG-GR 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am not interested in this back-and-forth-and-back-again agruement. I owe you nothing when you make a demand like "I believe you should be banned". If we banned everyone who didn't follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, well, Wiki would have about 15 members. Again, you just want a back-and-forth arguement and my head hurts and I am just not interested in this any longer. I am going back to what I do best, radio stations. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your continued implication that I "demand" you be banned is in itself a personal attack. You don't have to debate back and forth - never said you had to. I'm simply presenting the facts and stating that I believe an apology is in order and that you should be following policy. Also, I believe your statement that WP would only have 15 members if everyone followed policy is appallingly bad faith in your fellow editors. The policies are not difficult for a new editor to follow once they have been made aware of them (this is not an implication that you are new to WP - quite the contrary). Your continued refusal to follow the policies saddens me, as you are one of the few that contribute a MASSIVE amount of work to WP:WPRS, and I worry you are on a downward spiral. JPG-GR 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am not interested in this back-and-forth-and-back-again agruement. I owe you nothing when you make a demand like "I believe you should be banned". If we banned everyone who didn't follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, well, Wiki would have about 15 members. Again, you just want a back-and-forth arguement and my head hurts and I am just not interested in this any longer. I am going back to what I do best, radio stations. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not denying what I wrote (never have, never will). I didn't demand anything - you may want to reread what I wrote and assume good faith. If you refuse to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I believe you should be banned. That being said, that's a completely separate matter from the apology I'm owed. (1) I'm owed a apology for all your false allegations and (2) all editors must follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. JPG-GR 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- "I do believe a brief ban may be in order", under the "What would you like to change about that?" section...? Again, if you want to take that out (because "apology" and "ban" don't mix), I will be more than happy to participate. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
