Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Animal testing/Archive

message: Normally I steer clear of all conflicts — including those involving me! ;) — but it's distressing to me to see such well-meaning Wikipedians at logger-heads.  I might not be the optimal choice as a mediator, but I would try to recruit two other scrupulously honest, careful and disinterested parties (say, Awadewit and Roger Davies, if they would do it, or people cut from the same cloth) to form a mediation board of three.  My own shortcomings as a mediator are that I've worked with Tim before and that I'm not as familiar with animal testing as I should be; but I believe that I can promise to give everyone a fair hearing and to try as hard as I can to learn the subject and to pour oil on troubled waters.  I'm willing to commit the time to unsnarling this tangle.  With earnest hopes for a serene solution, Willow (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very kind offer Willow, but I think I have praised you too highly and too often for people to see you as impartial! :) If we do go into mediation, somebody who isn't involved with any of the editors would probably be a more neutral choice. Thanks though, you're most gracious. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kindly-meant offer of informal mediation?

message: Hello folks. I'm thinking of taking a wiki-break for a while, as grant and paper writing deadlines are looming for me in RL. I don't think my participation is a major point of conflict with any of the other participants, so I don't see that being too much of a problem. However, I will try and check in here and offer my thoughts on the animal testing page when possible. I can be reached by email if a prompt response in required. Rockpocket 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had any conflict with you, so I'm fine with that - although your opinions on the article will still be very welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

message: Would either of you be so kind as to elucidate why you each reverted a suggestion from an editor that archived material be reviewed in any mediation, given that an archival took place at around the same time as the request for mediation. It seems to me that any mediation should take place with as much information reviewed as possible, or do (both of) you disagree? Achromatic (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could they also explain why they both, in the edit summaries, described the suggestion to review recently archived material as "trolling"  ? Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are occasionally situations where it is appropriate to remove another editor's remarks from a talk page, such as in the event of a BLP violation. Removing Cla68's post in this situation, however, was utterly uncalled for. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have become increasingly aware that an awful lot of wikidrama seems to surround SlimVirgin, I'd prefer it if this mediation discussion could remain focussed on the article. Although I don't understand these removals or edit summaries either, an influx of editors who have not participated in the discussions at the Animal testing article would be not at all desirable. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Query for Crum375 and SlimVirgin