Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Meelar and User:Firebug vs. User:Mlorrey 1.1 Objection 1.2 Objection 2 1.3 Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order invoked against Meelar/Firebug 2 February 2.1 User:Kevehs and User:Sam Spade 3 March 3.1 User:El_C and User:Sam_Spade 3.2 External links in Online poker 4 April 4.1 TDC and Tony Sidaway 4.2 User:Gzuckier, User:Harro5, anon user 4.22x.X.X, re Yale University 4.3 User:Zappaz and User:Goethean vs. User:Andries re: Guru 4.4 User:Slrubenstein vs. User:The Rev of Bru re: Jesus 4.4.1 Outside Point of View 4.5 Armenian Genocide : Fadix & Coolcat 5 May 5.1 John Anderson (Australian politician) 5.2 User:Curps and User:AndyL 5.3 User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Ungtss 5.4 User:Sarcelles 5.5 Processor, CPU, and User:24.126.184.213

[edit] User:Meelar and User:Firebug vs. User:Mlorrey

Please see the request for comments against me, user Mlorrey. I hereby request mediation against the political edit-stalking of Meelar and Firebug.Mlorrey 21:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in whatever it takes to get neutral content into articles. If Mlorrey thinks mediation will help, that's fine. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why Mlorrey feels mediation against me is necessary at this point. Prior to that request, I had reverted a total of two of his edits, he claimed that my actions constituted "vandalism", and I reverted another edit. I don't feel that Mlorrey made a good-faith effort to use other avenues of dispute resolution before requesting mediation. The only reason that Mlorrey's actions came to my attention in the first place is that Meelar opened a RFC against him, and I reviewed his edit history to determine whether I wanted to endorse it. After reviewing his edits, I determined that a number of them flagrantly violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy, so I reverted them, and endorsed the RFC. I suspect that this request is retaliation for the RFC on Mlorrey's part. Since this situation began, I have made a compromise edit on Gun Control Act of 1968 that I hope will be suitable to all parties. Unfortunately, Mlorrey's comments on his RFC indicates that he believes it is objective and NPOV to state that gun control and politicians supporting it are fascist, so I fear that edit wars will continue to rage over this controversial issue. Firebug 03:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

Mlorrey challenges the reality of Firebug as a person independent of being a sockpuppet of Meelar.Mlorrey 04:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objection 2

Mlorrey also challenges Firebug's certification as a co-plaintiff, as Firebug intentionally initiated agression against my edits, AFTER this dispute began, which is a violation of dispute resolution protocol, in order gain this certification, and therefore is intentionally 'throwing himself in front of a bus'. This is fraud and his certification should be dismissed by whoever is ajudicating this court.Mlorrey 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order invoked against Meelar/Firebug

Mlorrey has also previously requested that this be moved to mediation, but has not been notified of any mediator taking jurisdiction of this case via message or email. Therefore, this case cannot move forward, nor can the alleged co-plaintiffs take further action until mediation jurisdiction has been established. Under the Hague Service Convention, he is entitled to be served proper notice. As a website providing service in many Hague signatory nations (including the US, Canada, and Europe), wikipedia is bound by this treaty. Until such is done, Mlorrey hereby revokes Meelar/Firebug's further authority to initiate force against him or his edits in wikipedia. This is to be considered a temporary injunction/restraining order against further changes of his edits and all reversions committed by Meelar/Firebug since the date of this RFC must be reversed, until such time as an official Wikipedia mediator acceptable to both sides agrees to accept jurisdiction over this case. Mlorrey 04:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, this is some of the most bizarre stuff I've ever read on Wikipedia. Mlorrey, this isn't a court of law. Firebug 06:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This case has been closed as it has been taken to arbitration. Mgm|^(talk) 17:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February

[edit] User:Kevehs and User:Sam Spade

I have been unable to communicate with this user since I first encountered them, and feel they lack Wikipedia:Civility. I am requesting mediation as part of the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't join Sam in requesting mediation, as the requisite steps that are supposed to come in the process prior to requesting it have not yet been attempted. I would therefore think this yet another example of Sam abusing wiki procedures whenever doing so would appear to produce the results he desires. However, I will happily take part in this procedure if said mediator hopes some good will come of it, and perhaps it will help clarify the reasoning behind Sam's behavior. Kev 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kev, I'm getting mixed messages from your post -- do you refuse mediation (on the grounds that you believe this is premature) or do you accept (I think mediators always hope good will come of the discussions they facilitate)? I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. Jwrosenzweig 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept and take part sincerely should there be a mediator who thinks they can help resolve the issue. That is my only condition. However, I think it is important to note that my personal position is that it is premature (given that the standard procedures were not followed), and I certainly don't want to waste anyones time if mediators agree that this is premature or believe that the issue is intractable. Kev 22:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given the above, are there any mediators willing to pursue this matter? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above mentions nothing about what particular debates or conflics the two users are having, and user:Kevehs seems to have been inactive for a couple weeks, only lightly active before that. Again, its unclear, other than accusations of incivility, what the points are. Recommend archive. -SV|t 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• User:Kevehs hasn't edited since April 12. I think this can be archived too. Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] March

[edit] User:El_C and User:Sam_Spade

I'm requesting mediation on behalf of El_C regarding several contentious discussions on battleground pages and what El_C feels is a lack of civility on Sam's part. Socialism (which has apparently been protected due to their disputes) and racialism are good examples of what is at issue here. See talk pages for more.

Note that both El_C and Sam Spade have agreed, to me personally, to undergo mediation in advance of this request. Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration. Speedy redress would be welcomed. Wally 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Wally -- I'd love it if El C and Sam could provide the names of some mediators they would mutually trust to handle the dispute. Also, if each one could offer a brief list of agreements they want to mutually agree upon by the end of the mediation, that would provide a good starting point. Jwrosenzweig 03:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object to the statement "Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration". I frankly don't think thats true, and suggest a review of User_talk:Wally#Regarding_El_C, where information regarding that, as well as discussion of goals can be found. User_talk:Sam_Spade#A_Request_from_El_C_and_Myself contains similar discussion of agreements sought. Similar to El C (@ User_talk:Wally#Mediators), I'd accept users Ed Poor and Danny (altho I'm not ruling others out). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 06:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should this be taken, Sam, to indicate you don't desire mediation?

Also, while El_C is not terribly familiar with most of the Mediation Committee, he relates to me that both Danny and Ed Poor "enjoy [his] confidence as mediators for this case." I echo this. Wally 02:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: the former: Absolutely not, I stand by my advice that User_talk:Wally#Regarding_El_C be reviewed, and have made clear thruout that I prefer compromise rather than escalation. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Sam_Spade#Mediation. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links in Online poker

Amid a recent campaign by the online community to make the Wikipedia article for Online poker the number one result in the search engine Google for that term, the page became the target of heavy vandalism and was subsequently locked for this reason. As the page was getting a large amount of traffic, I asked politely in IRC for an administrator to unlock the page so I could format the external links in MLA format, as I often do, even for featured articles while they are featured so that they are more presentable and professional looking. In the past, no one has ever complained, and people typically thank me for it as it takes some work, however, user 2005 has claimed that what I did was vandalism. Several people, including at least one admin, have informed him on the talk page that his conception of vandalism is flawed, and I explained to him that since he was persisting even in the face of several users and an admin that it would be necessary for us to engage in the dispute resolution process to solve the problem, as he is the only person who views this as vandalism. At that point, user 2005 quietly left the scene for several days, abandoning the discussion. Then he came back, presumably after others were not looking, and without attempting to reengage those who were watching the article reverted the MLA formatting citing, once again, vandalism in his edit summary. He is now attempting to lure other users into revert wars and is sticking to his claim that it is vandalism. For clarity, here is the definition of the term, according to Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia [...] Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.

--Alterego 00:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Alterego persists in blatantly untrue actions. None of this has anything to do with MLA format. Zero. He used that pretense to make significant content edits to the article, and then tried to disguise this indisputable bad faith deletion, done under the cover of a protected article, by labeling the its as "m"/minor, and subsequently pretending the issue has something to do with formatting. His actions are the definition of bad faith, in particular because the content edits in questions have been debated extensively in the discussion for that article, which Alterego has chosen to not particpate in. I ignored Alterego's comments previously as the bad faith edits have been reverted, and he has thus far refused to justify in any way his completely inappropriate behavior, or participate in discussion over the content of the article. Once again even mentioning the MLA cover of the malicious editing shows a lack of remorse and a disinterest in dealing with any genuine issues involved. 00:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I immediately posted on the talk page that I forgot to mark an edit summary [1], and explained what I had done. This goes above and beyond a simple edit summary. As a matter of fact, it was only one minute later. You are using a lot of loaded phrases like "indisputable bad faith deletion", "bad faith edits", "completely inappropriate behavior", "malicious editing", "lack of remorse", and it is leading me to wonder if you are trolling. Look again at my single edit and explain how any of these terms you are using describe improving the presentation of external links, something I do often. I don't understand your motivation here and I am not willing to engage in a revert war with you, as you were attempting to lure me (and others) into. --Alterego 01:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that I have not made a single edit to the 'content' of the article above the external links section, so please lets keep our discussion specific to that area. --Alterego 01:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that no one from the Mediation Committee replied before now. This was quite a few weeks ago. Is this problem still something which requires mediation? Angela. 02:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April

[edit] TDC and Tony Sidaway

• TDC (talk · contribs)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

TDC will be notified of this request immediately.

As a result of a few encounters with TDC, and observing that he frequently seems to attract quite a lot of friction from other editors, I supported an RFC brought concerning his behavior. As a result of the confirmation that not only I but several others have found our encounters with him characterized by extreme rudeness, resort to personal attack, and somewhat determined edit warring, I decided that mediation would almost certainly help, if TDC was willing. He has accepted. I hope that by a mediated dialog we will be able to establish better communication, and that this will lead to less problematic behavior on his part, or at least more understanding on my part of his reasons for behaving as he does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do either of you have any preference for a mediator? Those currently listed as active are Andrevan, Bcorr, CatherineMunro, Cimon Avaro, Danny, Ed Poor, Stevertigo, TUF-KAT, Jwrosenzweig, and Improv, though you may want to check their contributions to see whether they really are active. Angela. 10:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have no preferences. Any mediator willing to help us to establish a rapport would be fine with me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gzuckier, User:Harro5, anon user 4.22x.X.X, re Yale University

• Harro5 (talk · contribs)
• Gzuckier (talk · contribs)

• HELP!!! Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On Yale University I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, in response to a suggestion on Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies by User: Patrick Grey Anderson who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies of my thinking as to relevance. User:Harro5 apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See here and User talk:Harro5, as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details.
  • On April 24:
    • anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire Yale_University#Miscellany section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin. Note: deleted entire miscellany section, not just the high profile crimes section.
    • 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'.
    • User:Harro5 deleted entire miscellany section again, with only edit summary For reasoning see here, said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale.
  • On April 25:
    • 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate., the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion.
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted entire miscellany section again, with only an edit summary. Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see here, same irrelevant link as before. Note accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include User:Harro5
    • 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball. I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion.
  • On April 26:
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. Note again accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time.
    • 03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on User_talk:Harro5#Message_regarding_.22random_comments and in Talk:Yale University for user 4.22x.X.X.
    • user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on User talk:Harro5 complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that User:Harro5 report me for three revert rule violation. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on User talk:Harro5, and on Talk:Yale University; whereas User:Harro5 and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to Talk:Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology#Deaths_and_suicides and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to NOT violate the three revert rule, and did not.
    • User:Harro5 deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.
    • User:Harro5 attempts to report me for three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours.
    • User:Nunh-huh (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:there's no reason to delete this material.
• So am I totally offbase here? Gzuckier 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be best to start with discussions on the talk page before coming to mediation, which as far as I can tell, Harro5 hasn't done for the Yale article at all yet. However, he has now said he'd allow the changes at User talk:Gzuckier#Yale deaths, so perhaps the issue is already resolving itself without mediation? Angela. 11:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zappaz and User:Goethean vs. User:Andries re: Guru

Inability to break deadlock, onging revert war. Recent RfC did not bring any help from other editors. User:Zappaz and User:Goethean complaint is that User:Andries, is attempting to use WP as a place for advocating against gurus. The complaint is basically that a general, neutral encyclopedia article on gurus is filled with criticisms of gurus by a few Western anti-guru authors with what amounts to using the Wikipedia for advocacy, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, User:Andries, claims that the article needs to feature an extensive section on criticism of gurus because [sic]"even if these gurus did not commit crimes, they are controversial because they disappoint their followers because they often turn out to be very human and incompetent to bring the disciple to their promised moksha in spite of their claims to be saints etc, [...and that...] The concept of guru is very controversial in the West." and that "the negative opinion about gurus is the majority and hence deserves majority space.". User:Goethean replies that [sic] "gurus, is one of the most important concepts in Eastern religions (which are practiced by 1.3 billion people, not including Western New Agers [2] and that hence the Western critics are a minority POV. Request page protection and mediation to break deadlock. --Zappaz 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said that the criticism of the gurus can be large in the section about gurus in the West because there the majority view of gurus has been intensely criticized. I was not talking about the amount of criticism in the article in general. Andries 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate. Seems like a minor matter of how to best represent the material. -SV|t 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Stevertigo. How do we proceed? --Zappaz 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Slrubenstein vs. User:The Rev of Bru re: Jesus

Slrubenstein's summary of conflict

Rev of Bru reverts changes made by Slrubenstein. RoB is a POV warrior who has made it clear that he will not accept claims that important scholars accept that Jesus once existed: [3] and [4]. Slrubenstein accepts that some scholars reject the existence of Jesus, but maintains that most well-respected critical scholars accept Jesus' existence. Slrubenstein and RoB have argued over who is considered a respected scholar: [5]. SR's criteria for "scholar" is someone who has a relevant PhD., teaches at a major accredited university, publishes books in academic presses and/or articles in peer-reviewed journals, regardless of whether their views coincide with SR's or not. RoB's criteria for "scholar" is anyone, whether they have credentials or not, who agrees with RoB's POV.

In short, I object to RoB's knee-jerk reverting of any change I make to the article, without any consideration for process (explaining his edits, responding to my explanations). Moreover, I object to his knee-jerk POV warrioring, refusing to accept views other than his own Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to accept this matter, if thats agreeable. This seems to be about a fairly basic issue of proper sources, and perhaps RoB would like to comment. -SV|t

Rev of Bru comments

I would like to comment. That is a most unfair summary of events so far. I have repeatedly objected to user Slrubstein removing parts of the article which he does not like and repeatedly reverting my edits.

1. I have always tried to compromise but there comes a point when compromise results in inaccuracies.
2. I have repeatedly asked Slrubstein for a list of secular scholars who, on investigating the issue, have concluded that there definitely was a historical Jesus Christ. He has yet to reply with any.
3. He did provide a list of non-secular scholars, but that is not what the dispute was regarding originally anyway, and is irrelevant.
4. I provided a list of several secular scholars who dispute his existence. The current ratio of secular scholars who are skeptical vs accepting is hugely in favour of skeptical. IF he or anyone can provide a greater number of accepting secular scholars, then the article should be changed. If not, I don't see why his POV reverts should remain.The Rev of Bru

Slrubenstein's response to Rev of Bru's comments

1. Can Rev of Bru provide one example of a compromise on his part?
2. RoB says I have yet to provide a list of scholars who argue that Jesus existed? This is a flat-out lie. I provided a lengthy list on April 28: [6]
3. RoB says the list of scholars I provided are not secular, and thus irrelevant? This is a lie. RoB calls these scholars "non-secular" soleley because he disagrees with them. The scholars I listed are the most well-respected critical scholars of the NT. That he continues to falsely call these "non-secular" and to dismiss them as authorities is simply more evidence of his POV warrioring.
4. RoB says he provided an extensive list of scholars? I explained why most of them are simply not "scholars" [7]. His list includes a mechanical engineer, a geologist, and a German teacher. I grant that these may be authorities on mechanical engineering, geology, and German, but they are not scholars of the NT. The only reason RoB calls them "scholars" is because he agrees with them — another example of his POV warrioring (at the expense of the quality of this encyclopedia, which of course requires good research of good scholarship). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediator comments on issue of behaviour

1. The use of blanket reverts is improper outside of cases of vandalism or error. If their use is pervasive, this is grounds for a review by the Arbitration Committee, where they will ascertain if such compounded behaviour breaches Civility policy. -SV

Mediator comment on article issues

Further information: /SV:SR-Rob -SV

Narrative of discussion on Talk Page

Concerning the specific edit in dispute, I have provided a lengthy explanation for my changes [8]; this explanation was provided on:

• 21:36 April 28 2005
  • explanation for edits

Note: Rev of Bru never responded to this explanation.

Note: Since I posted this explanation, Rev of Bru has reverted my changes twice (through three separate edits). In this time Rev of Bru has provided no explanation on the Talk page.

When I complained about this on the talk page, Rev of Bru makes three assertions:

1. that I am pushing a POV because most people have not studied the evidence [9]. In fact I adressed this question in a comment on the Talk page on April 20 [10].
2. that he has explained why he added the sentences in question [11]. In fact there is no such explanation on the talk pages.
3. that I never explained my edit, aside from an edit summary stating that RoB is wrong [12]. In fact I provided a lengthy explanation for my edits on April 28 explanation for edits

Chronicle of edits to article

• 18:24 April 28 2005
  • SR edits a paragraph; no change in content: [13]
• 18:35 April 28 2005
  • SR deletes one sentence; [14]
• 21:15 April 28 2005
  • RoB reverts edits by SR: [15]
• 21:29 April 28 2005
  • SR makes changes again, "see talk" in edit summary: [16]
• 18:00 29 April 2005
  • RoB reverts second half of SR's edit [17]
• 13:55 April 30 2005
  • RoB reverts first half of SR's edit [18]
• 18:27 April 30 2005
  • SR again makes changes, again writes "see talk" in edit summary [19]
• 18:38 April 30 2005
  • RoB again reverts, writes "see talk" in edit summary but does not provide any explanation in talk page [20]
• 18:42 April 30 2005
  • SR reverts [21]
• 20:02 April 30 2005
  • JimWae attempts a compromise [22]
• 21:59 April 30 2005
  • SR reverts [23]; SR provides an explanation for reversion on talk page [24]
• 23:54 April 30 2005
  • JimWae attempts another compromise, taking into account SR's comment [25]; SR accepts JimWae's compromise [26]
• 19:24 May 1 2005
  • RoB changes JimWae's compromise [27]
• 19:39 May 1 2005
  • SR reverts to JimWae's compromise [28]

[edit] Outside Point of View

User:The Rev of Bru is obviously just an older incarnation of User:CheeseDreams which she has now starting using again, so re-banning based on the ArbCom decision is probably more appropriate than mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide : Fadix & Coolcat

Content dispute with possible POV issues at Armenian Genocide. Please see /Archive 15 for details. No mediator has volunteered to take on this case yet.

I'm taking a look now. Discussion at least seems civil. -SV|t 20:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May

[edit] John Anderson (Australian politician)

I've been having this issue on the page for a while, but its getting ridiculous. The issue started during the Australian Election last year, when Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson made a couple of comments on the Australian Greens, in the form of humour but in line with how Anderson normally speaks. I have added these quotes a number of times to the page, and they are valid. However, Adam Carr, who works for my local MP, and a member of the Australian Labour Party, has repeatedly removed these quotes calling them jokes. I have already discussed it with him on the Talk Page, however, Doctor Carr has acted highly pompous on this issue, and keeps removing the quotes calling them "frivilous" and alike. He has also then proceeded to take a shot at me for being of the youth division of the Liberal Party, "Anderson's joke lines, given out of context, are unencyclopaedic, no matter how amusing Young Liberals find them", and has tried to discount my ability to edit on the Wikipedia. These quotes are in context, but it is impossible to let others view them when Doctor Carr keeps judging what are and what are not quotes. I am requesting another credible user mediate and set out what and what can be quoted and whether or not Doctor Carr has been acting pompously on this issue. Evolver of Borg 18:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mediation is no longer required as Doctor Carr has not made any further dedits to the quotes section, de facto acknowledgement of their legimacy. Evolver of Borg 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Curps and User:AndyL

Dispute on April 25 at The Matrix involving protection, unprotection and editing under protection. AndyL 12:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You yourself rejected mediation when I suggested it a week ago... you insisted on starting an RfC instead. But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started, after putting me through the time and effort of doing two very extensive RfC writeups which you would not or could not respond to, and now claim to want mediation after all. In other words, you wasted my time and then just walked away. I have no doubt you would just do the exact same thing here, again. You're playing games and we're going in circles.

This mediation request is in bad faith. It's merely a ploy to sabotage an RfC process which turned out heavily to your disadvantage. I'm sure you also simply wanted to be able to pretend in the future that it was me who rejected mediation when in fact it was you. -- Curps 07:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started,"

Wrong. Philwelch started the RFC process, not me. AndyL 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You filed an RfC against me which I replied to. I filed an RfC against you which you did not reply to. You take refuge in invented techicalities and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. I don't have time to play games with you. This experience has left me convinced you lack the integrity or competence to be an admin. As usual, you will insist on having the last word, so take your parting shot and then we'll move on. -- Curps 21:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. "

That's a misrepresentation. A third party inappropriately added comments to the response which belonged on the discussion page.AndyL 22:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"I filed an RFC which you did not reply to"

I replied to Philwelch's RFC and then wrote one of my own in regards to your behaviour. You then rewrote Phil's RFC after it had already been certified and after I had already written a detailed response. I thought rewriting an RFC after it had been certified and expecting me to rewrite my response was inappropriate and a violation of procedure.AndyL 01:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Given Curps' rejection of mediation and the fact that this dispute is not active I am withdrawing my request for mediation. AndyL 18:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Ungtss

Ongoing dispute involving editing of Theistic realism and other articles. Joshuaschroeder 04:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Joshuaschroeder's summary of the conflict:

User:Ungtss is a creationist editor of many articles who maintains editorial control over articles by making accusations that his opponents haven't researched and are biased in providing edits. This is particularly apparent in Theistic realism where Ungtss has refused multiple attempts on the talkpage to work with him to resolve conflict. Currently I have been trying to work with him to gain an understanding of where to go with the piece on theistic realism, but his insistence that I don't know what I'm talking about is getting tiresome. Joshuaschroeder 04:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss's summarry of the conflict: Schroeder is a materialist editor who maintains editorial control over articles by engaging all editors who disagree with him in endless debates in an effort to tire them out. this has recently been observed by other editors here and here, in his recent effort to delete the page entirely, which he summarized as follows:[29]. Additionally, he was recently blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3rr on this page. he repeatedly deletes portions of cited quotes from authors writing about the topic of the article, and will edit war when necessary. the 3rr violation was over this edit. i have no objection to mediation. Ungtss 02:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarcelles

I hope I am at the right place with this comment/request.

User:Sarcelles is banned in the German and French Wikipedias, he has been blocked several times in the Italian and nds:-Wikipedias. The reason for action against him was usually that he produced dozens of badly written stubs per day, with information which he was not prepared to prove and which often enough turned out to be simply wrong after some follow-up. I was among those who cleaned up the mess he left in the German Wikipedia. It seems that after he was temporarily blocked in nds:, he now starts his activities in the English language Wikipedia. His contributions to follow up are here, the quality seems to have improved in comparison to what he contributed in de:, however, I have good reasons to doubt the correctness. I don't know how you guys in en: handle this kind of problems, I just want to alert the one or other among you about this potential problem case. --de:Benutzer:Herr_Klugbeisser.

[edit] Processor, CPU, and User:24.126.184.213

I have tried my best to ask this user to justify his edits and have explained in detail why they are totally unmerited. Basically this user is trying to slant a few articles very heavily to PowerPC when it is totally inappropriate. For example, why should PowerPC be given more mention on the Processor article when there are literally hundreds of other processor architectures we could list? PowerPC is a notable architecture, but it isn't any more important than the many many others I can think of. I have confronted the user with these facts and his only response is to re-add his edits, give me a list of applications of the PowerPC processors (which, I might add, are applications of many many different types of CPUs), and post profanity on my talk page. The bulk of this discussion can be found on my talk page. I'm somewhat tempted not to even ask for mediation here since the user has shown little civility or willing to budge on his ridiculous position, but I'd rather give him a chance to be reasoned with first. -- uberpenguin 14:06, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Currently the user continues to add back content without explaining it. He continues to insist that IBM is the originator of PowerPC rather than the AIM alliance, which is neither true nor in line with the corresponding Wikipedia articles. He also continues to add a large list of PowerPC processors to both the Central processing unit and the CPU electrical consumption pages without any justification. Granted, detail is desirable, but not when a third or less of what he is posting will suffice to make the point. The volume of statistics he cites just makes the page unnecessarily long and makes it seem as if PowerPC is more abundant or plentiful than the many other CPU architectures listed. Could someone please assist here? I hope I'm not the only one who believes these edits are confusing and lend nothing of value to the articles in question. -- uberpenguin 00:24, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

• One of the requirements of mediation is that both parties agree to it. Have you informed User:24.126.184.213 of your request for mediation? humblefool® 22:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ack! I'm so sorry, I'm such a fool for forgetting that... I reverted the articles again with a message requesting his presence here, and added a similar message to my talk page. Hopefully he'll see that and post his concerns here. -- uberpenguin 14:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Currently the only remaining conflict involves a quasi edit-war surrounding the CPU article. In the CPU article the anonymous editor asserts that PowerPC is IBM's creation alone rather than that of the AIM alliance. The justification he provides is that "all companies license PowerPC from IBM" and a MacNews World interview [30]. I assert that PowerPC is an open architecture that anybody can implement WITHOUT having to license, and cite an IBM developerWorks article to back my claim up. [31] When the intervew he cites talks about Motorola licensing IBM PowerPC technology, it refers to them licensing specific IBM implementations, not the open PowerPC ISA itself. I can also dig up links where IBM itself provides the entire ISA of PowerPC for download, free of charge or licensing.

It is true that IBM solely designed the POWER architecture that was largely the base of what is now called PowerPC, but totally ignoring Motorola and Apple's roles is fallacy. As a small example, SIMD instructions (i.e. AltiVec/VMX in PowerPC chips) were never (and still are not) a part of IBM's POWER design; the addition of SIMD units to PowerPC chips was mostly motivated by Apple and Motorola. Apple, one of the largest consumers of IBM PowerPC implementations, is heavily reliant on the SIMD instructions provided by the AltiVec units. I somewhat get the feeling that this user isn't doing a good job distinguishing between PowerPC as an instruction set architecture and PowerPC as the various implementations of said ISA.

Note that the related Wikipedia articles on the matter (PowerPC, AIM alliance) support my standpoint{which is also wrong}, not his. A handful of other users have also reverted his changes in favor of my own. I don't want to carry on an edit war, and would like to have this resolved nicely. See my talk page for a few more details on just how well our past discussions have gone. -- uberpenguin 03:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>PowerPC is a registered tradmark of IBM corp. NOT AIM NOT MOTOROLA NOT APPLE BUT "IBM" berkeley firmworks amcc motorola tradmark IBM tradmark of IBM PowerPC tradmark of IBM tradmark of IBM PowerPC hitachi PowerPC tradmark of IBM tradmark of IBM IBM legal page PowerPC tradmark of IBM

So what? Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds; that doesn't indicate anything about its Free status. It simply means that Linus has some legal leverage to somewhat control the use of the name. PowerPC is still an open ISA that does not have to be licensed from IBM to implement. You still haven't provided any counterpoint to this, or have provided reason why we should TOTALLY IGNORE Apple and Motorola, who were instrumental in the development of the AltiVec/VMX, one of the most important features in higher-end PowerPC cores. -- uberpenguin

>>>>>>PowerPC consist of the 32-bit operands of the 64-bit POWER architecture .... altavec/vmx an extension to book E of the PowerPC architecture.. open standard=yes : ibm defines the standard of PowerPC to ensure that it works with the POWER Architecture

You don't read Wikipedia very much, do you? POWER was not originally a 64-bit design, neither was PowerPC. What's more, you have things a bit backwards; IBM maintains a high degree of compatibility with the PowerPC spec, but that's because the ISA hasn't changed all that much since PowerPC64 was defined. Now, what was your point again? -- uberpenguin 20:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>uberpenquin wikipedia is a menagerie of dis-conjointed ideas and beliefs with the hope that future refinements will find an equilibrium between fact and fiction. i do not profess to be an expert on all thing POWER/PowerPC, but if i were you would respectfully allow my revisions, that same courtesy would be offered to you if you knew of all things related to POWER/PowerPC. but neither case is true. i really don't have a problem with the term aim alliance but in the context in which its used. to promulgate the belief that each member contributed 1/3 to the creation of PowerPC is a terrible injustice exacted upon the hundreds of engineers at IBM research, and marginalizes all previous endeavors in system design(system\360,AS\400,RS\6000,.........etc.) as wasted efforts. IBM never publicly disclosed the POWER ISA which was evolving from AS\400,RS\6000,system\360{199xAD), and later powerpc.I guest its easier to belief that it only needed about 50 engineers{i grossly exaggerated from memory,might be less} sent from Motorola/apple to IBM research before the public unveiling of the PowerPC 601 to synergize IBM’s IP into what is now POWER/PowerPC. the facility which would become the center for research&development for the apple/ibm/motorola{aim} alliance was located at _____{either ibm research campus/motorola site i’m tiredLookUpSomTimeNever}.

you keep on insisting that PowerPC is an openStandard and on this i agree. in 1996(i think) exponential technologies release 750(notSure,7??). but there was a dispute(dontRemeberDetails) between apple/motorola/exponentialTech. what became of ET (baughtByAIMdontRemeber)

First of all, the S/360, S/38, AS/400, RS/6000, etc were all architected long before PowerPC/POWER came along (and POWER was named retroactively anyway), so let's just get that straight. The S/360 has almost nothing to do with PowerPC/POWER anyway, and the S/38 and AS/400 used a CISC architure called IMPI by IBM before Amazon was conceived and Belatrix was designed (and here the history and names get a bit convoluted). In fact, the original POWER, which first appeared in an RS/6000 ca. 1990, doesn't really even resemble PowerPC or what is now called POWER at all. I do not disagree that PowerPC is MAINLY IBM's doing, but it is not EXCLUSIVELY IBM's doing. By the same merit that it is unjust to say that all three contributed equally, it is unjust to pretend that Motorola and Apple did nothing at all.

Now, currently the AIM alliance article DOES indicate that PowerPC was mostly IBM's work, and if you'd like to clarify that further I wouldn't object whatsoever. What I object to is ignoring Motorola and Apple, that is all. On a brief overview page like that, it is totally appropriate to say AIM alliance, and then on the more detailed pages elaborate that PowerPC was originally IBM's design, but was expanded some for use in lower-end computers, the original design re-named POWER, the AIM alliance formed, etc. So if you want to expand the history on the PowerPC page some (which needs to be done anyway), or indicate that the AIM alliance built mostly upon IBM's previous work in that article, I have no problems. However, I still cannot see a justification for ignoring Motorola and Apple simply because PowerPC is MOSTLY IBM's. -- uberpenguin 21:30, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I found a great article that plainly lays out the differences in POWER and PowerPC and clearly shows that they are NOT the same and NOT totally compatible. It was written by Frank Soltis, who is a long-time IBM engineer that designed the System/38 and AS/400 architectures and has a lot to do with the design of the POWER/PowerPC ISA. Please read this to clear up some of your misconceptions since it is written by an actual IBM engineer and not some third party that can misconstrue facts. [32] -- uberpenguin 13:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Some of the things you have said indicate a somewhat disturbing lack of knowledge about this subject. Calling portions of an ISA "operands" is very loose terminology at best, and at worst totally incorrect. I'm not here to criticize your knowledge (only the edits you have made regarding the PowerPC article), but if you don't know what you're talking about you really shouldn't be insisting on your phrasing... In any case, you still have not provided justification for ignoring the significant roles that Motorola and Apple played in the birth of PowerPC. IBM holding the trademark means nothing, and while they did design most of what is now called PowerPC, it is by no means totally their creation. -- uberpenguin 22:38, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Since nothing further has been added to this, I'm going to change the CPU article to read "AIM Alliance" once more for the reasons I've outlined. I'll also try to revise the AIM Alliance and PowerPC article a bit in the future to explain IBM's prominant role (though the PowerPC article already does a decent job). -- uberpenguin 03:59, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)