Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archive/2

message: Why was the Sathya Sai Baba 2 request for mediation removed? SSS108 talk-email 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the rejected case archives. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If he is now willing to sign on, just relist it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sathya Sai Baba

message: I've deleted  and instead placed the text in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Case_name_.28Sample.29. Too many people seem to either not understand how to use the template, edit the template itself, or ignore it entirely. Hopefully, with three bolded messages on the page requiring the format, the template itself there, and now delisted case tags that point out the problem, people will get the point that a rambling ten paragraph rant does not make for a mediation case. I intend to continue with the policy of rejecting any request that fails to use the format; as I see it, it is a matter of respect: If you really want to take your case to mediation, you will respect the requirements. Additionally, it thins out insincere requests: If you can't even be bothered to use the right format, then you aren't really that interested in mediation, and your case should rightly be ignored. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template format 

message: Hi. I nominated a case just now, but afterwards I realized that many of the parts I called upon have not been involved in the conflict lately. The main involved parties of the case are me, User:Mikkalai, and user:Digi Wiki. If those other two people I listed rejected to mediate, will the case be rejected? I could remove them from the list of participants, but I've already querried them on their discussion page.
Fred-Chess 17:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are not involved in the dispute any longer, and you don't forsee them becoming involved again, then yes, you can remove them. Just leave them a note saying "I realized you'd not been involved for a while; I've removed you for now, but if you want to partipate, please feel free to re-add yourself." Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some users I listed have not been involved lately 

message: Hi, I don't know where to write my request for mediation, so I'll write it here. If someone knows the right plase, please put it there. My request is for the article Nikola Karev. It is one of the many Macedonian-Bulgarian disputes. I have written a version which can be a compromis but the user FunkyFly is stubburn in his nationalism, rewgarding this and other articles concerning Macedonian-Bulgarian questions. See mine and his version of the article and please help (Zdravko mk 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board for dispute resolution efforts in place.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nikola Karev

message: He is constantly being rude and disrespectuful. I really want his behaviour to be examined. 72.57.230.179
:This is not the place for complaints about admins. Take it to ANI or Arbitration. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am Sick and Tired of Admin:InShanees incivil behaviour

message: Essjay, what happened to the Sathya Sai Baba submission. I read the history tab where it said it was "accepted". What is the next step? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once cases are accepted, members of the committee review the available cases and decide which ones they individually wish to mediate. The request remains unassigned until a mediator takes the assignment and contacts the parties. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's not really any way to know what the AC will or won't accept. However, if it's a quick solution that is desired, Arbitration is the last place to go; cases rarely ever close in less than two months, and often go far longer than that. They also typically end with people being sanctioned; it doesn't often happen that an AC case closes without someone being placed on some kind of restriction. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Sathya Sai Baba Dispute

message: I've noticed that the section of the mediation filing for the acceptance or rejection of a mediation case is not on the filing. Is this going to cause mediation to ignore the filing? --Kephera975 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything improperly formatted might. Zos 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision Section of the Mediation Filing Missing For "Eight Articles"

message: *Detemine whether historical material about the Stella Matutina should be kept distinct from the more recent and non-continuous modern order founded in 2000, Ordo Stella Matutina.
:This is an entirely new issue, going on right now. I wish to add historical information to the Ordo Stella Matutina article, and user 999 will not allow this. He created an article for disamb called Stella Matutina, then instead of leaving these two article be, he redirected the latter to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. He is not allowing good faith and also threatening to take his name off mediation page because I wish to add to the article! So he made this new bullet point to get me to stop. It wont work unless someone tells me that I cannot add to an article under request for mediation that has not even been accepted nor rejected. Zos 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I intended for the placement of historical vs. modern information to be discussed and decided in mediation. If I phrased the points too narrowly, it is only because I had no idea that anyone would want to do what you are trying to do. -999 (Talk) 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that I cannot contribute while there is a request for mediation. Zos 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, one of the reasons a request may be rejected is if the Mediation Committee have reason to believe that any of the parties signed in bad faith. Continuing to edit the article over the objections of one of the other parties could easily be taken as suggesting bad faith and lead to the rejection of the request. -999 (Talk) 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information I wish to add gives credibility to that article. I only add meterial while provding citations. We have already been adding cited information to the Cipher Manuscripts article, in good faith, and I will continue to do the same for any unprotected article uder mediation until told otherwise by a mediator, or the chairman (or anyone else of relevance to this matter). Zos 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New issue

message: I've removed all the comments on the mediation page. This is to conform to the requirments of format for requesting mediation. This has been done in good faith, so please understand that before you get the wrong idea. Thanks. Zos 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve. We should do everything we can to get his mediation accepted. I've gone through and numbered the points to make them easier to discuss and combined related points so as to reduce the intimidating number of points to something more managable. This also has been done in good faith, so I also ask that other parties please understand that before you get the wrong idea. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments removed

message: I have declined to particiapte in the mediation. If the process does not go on beacuse of this, I apologize. 
Reason:
Recently, I have been having some trouble adding to articles because of user 999. I personally do not like his threats of removing his name from the list, in order to keep me from adding cited material to articles. It is apperant that he is taking mediation too seriously (before it is accepted/rejected), and his actions on the talk pages are leading me to believe there is an attempt at ownership. I have filed a complaint against his latest attack of verbal abuse here. I wish the other editors luck in dealing with this matter, and hope to edit with them after this is all over. All good thoughts. Zos 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As quickly as 999 declined, he has now nominated 2 articles for deletion that were requested for mediation, and one that was not. Please check them to see if you wish to add to the survey. Thanks. Zos 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize if you feel it was a complaint. I am simply letting others who are viewing know what is going on after we declined. Now you are saying you withdrew from mediation first? Check the history, I declined, then you followed. I used no force to edit either. Zos 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Which clarification? Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not dense, but you feel its needed to state that I am complaining, and this is simply wrong. Zos 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I just didnt understand which clarification you were refering to, and to which topic. It could have been a number of things, and was not pointed directly to such, until bolded. Zos 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline 

message: If this is rejected, I would like some recommendation on the proper next step to proceed. User:Wiarthurhu is being incorrigible, has wholly rewritten the Issued to be mediated into a personal attack on me and my qualifications (I won't dignify an attack on my intellectual or academic qualifications by answering them). I'm willing to treat this as solely a content dispute, but it's becoming more clear that Wiarthurhu doesn't. I've already filed a wikiquette complaint against him Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#28_June_2006 that shows his other personal attacks (backed up by another editor's recent dispute with him). His behavior (his "bring it on baby" comment here, his daring other editors to revert him on the F-14 page , and his proclamation of "VICTORY"  ) on talk pages are not promising. --Mmx1 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-14 Mediation 

message: Just a technical question here, anyone may feel free to remove it since it is not part of the discussion:  If we are using this page for a discussion, why is there an "archive" tag at the top that says not to edit this page?  And why is section-editing apparently disabled on this page?  (Or do these questions have the same answer?)  6SJ7 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. I removed the tag. Hope that's the right thing to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new heading to move this out of the way.  I notice that with the tag gone, the section-editing links have reappeared.  Or maybe I was just missing something earlier.  6SJ7 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to delete this little section tomorrow unless someone has an objection.   6SJ7 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical question 

message: Could I ask people to stick to what the page says the rules are, and not keep adding comments? Comments can be left here instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Who is this, as this person added a large number of editors to the apartheid mediation request, of which some have only commented in the talk pages. The acount is brand new, and jumps straight here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find equally interesting is that this fairly-obvious sockpuppet has placed a notice on each of the nine editors' talk pages, informing them of both the arbitration and the mediation -- in fact, the arbitration is mentioned first -- and yet the sockpuppet only added their names as parties on the mediation page, not on the arbitration page.  One can only speculate on the possible motivations for this series of actions, and on who might be motivated to do so.  6SJ7 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the names. It's unfortunate that some people (I'm assuming the same ones) who managed to turn this issue into chaos in the first place continue their efforts with the mediation request. I hope all reasonable people on both sides will stand up against it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in the process of compiling a list of the major versus minor players. If you can help with that, it would be appreciated. I mean major and minor over the list of all the articles, and the dispute in general, not any given page. That would include edits to talk pages as well as edits to articles. I know it's hard to be precide and precision isn't needed: just a rough guide. If anyone later objects to whether they've been called major or minor, that can be discussed at that point. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd really appreciate some help with the list, because I truly have no idea who the major players are. You can let me know by email if you prefer to stay away from these pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|SlaveCrixus}} 

message: Kim, I've refactored this section to remove names and just include the main issues. People were starting to use it as a soapbox and that's not what it's for. It's intended only as a rough guide to the mediator. There'll be plenty of time for detail if this goes ahead. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to be mediated

message: As I have indicated in my contribution to the Issues to be mediated, the prime issue is content, and not titles, but this seems now to become secondary to the title issue. I think that the current mediation request underestimates the issues at hand. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, please leave it. This will all be discussed with the mediator, if we ever get that far. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, it wont, given your failure to obtain agreement for mediation from anyone outside of your own faction. Perhaps if you expressed a willingness to compromise in the request for mediation there might be more confidence in your willingness to compromise on the actual issues?Homey 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unreal. First, they move the page without any consensus. Then they open a request for mediation that looks like a demand for agreement. Then they remove the names of several editors who don't agree with their view on the case. Now they're demanding that the mediator be allowed to decide whether it's okay for them to remove the names of people who want to participate in the discussion over this page and what is permitted to be discussed. I think we should discuss how come pages that might be considered anti-Israeli-policy have "NPOV" titles, but those that support or describe concepts favourable to Israel and its lobbyists do not.Grace Note 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement motivation 

message: Kim, could I ask you please to stop moving, removing, or adding names. I have asked several people for a list of the major players. I can't  compile it because I don't know who they are, so I've put out several requests, and then we can compile the list on this page first, and come up with an agreed list. Please don't do it unilaterally. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why has my name been removed? I consider myself a party to this dispute, have clearly contributed to it and intend to do so again. I was duly notified of the RfM and commented. I'm really pissed off. Whoever did it, please put me back and restore my comments. You can't win disputes simply by excising disputants! And Slim, it's not up to you to decide who is or is not a "major player". It smacks very much of a ploy to ensure that "your side" outnumbers the other one significantly, so you can spuriously claim a "consensus" that simply does not exist. Grace Note 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were notified of the dispute by a sockpuppet account, someone clearly out to cause trouble. Please stop the nonsense about my side and factions. I'm trying with the best will that I can muster to prepare a Request for Mediation and to try to find out who is central to it, and who is not. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, you voted not to be involved in the mediation, so why on earth would you want your name to be added anyway? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving names

message: *HOTR
*Zeq
*Jayjg
*KimvdLinde
*Humus sapiens
*Bhouston
*6SJ7
*SlimVirgin
===Minor players?===
*CJCurrie
*Pecher
*PinchasC
*Heptor
*Natalinasmpf
*TShilo12
*Vvuppala
*Moshe
*Beneaththelandslide
*Bcrowell
*Bibigon
*Bill Levinson
*ChrisO
*FayssalF
*IZAK
*Leifern 
*MPerel
*Nagle
*Timothy Usher
I've asked a few people who the central players are, and the ones currently listed as central/major are the ones that all the lists I received have in common. The other names are names mentioned by some people.  Kim, I've put you under minor because not everyone mentioned you, but if you want to move yourself to major, please do. That goes for everyone else. Ditto if you're on the major list, but feel your involvement was peripheral. The names on both lists will be able to participate equally in the mediation; this is just to get an idea of whose participation is necessary for the mediation to be meaningful. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, no one mentioned Nagle's name even as minor player. I added his name as a courtesy because he brought the RfAr, but I've checked his contribs and there seem to be hardly any edits during the dispute either to the affected articles or their talk pages. Am I missing them? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did list him at my sorting. He has 32 main space edits, 28 talk page edits, 22 central discussion edits, let alone noticeboard and related pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked and couldn't see them, though I did only glance. Can you say which articles mainly? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly Israeli apartheid, and the centralized discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a closer look, and the edits to Israeli apartheid, before the RfM was posted, were just a few between June 23 and 27; ditto on the talk page. If we call that a major contribution, the list of major contributors is going to be very large. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved SlimVirgin and Jayjg into the major players category.  SlimVirgin has tons of edits of Israeli apartheid article (and its variants) -- multiples of what I have.  SlimVirgin has also been active in telling Homey that he is a partisan.  Jayjg has been active in making proposals (which included the merging of the Israeli apartheid article into the Apartheid outside of South Africa), created the Apartheid outside of South Africa article (for what some alleged were strategic reasons) and has repeatly merged the Israeli apartheid into the Apartheid outside of South Africa.  I have removed Moshe as a major player -- since he only has a couple edits in the area and was not a major participant on the talk page, I am unsure why he is a major player -- but feel free to re-add him if I am missing something evidence.  --Ben Houston 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a technical note, Ben, I didn't create the Apartheid outside of South Africa article.  In fact, it was created on July 10, 2005 by Bcrowell.   My first edit to the page was on August 21, 2005. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The above separation of minor and major players is pretty inaccurate.  It would be better if we had editing statistics of each individual of the relevant pages, the number of moves each individual has done and the number of AfD's each individual has done.  While I like to think of myself as a major player -- I've actually had a very low number of edits to the main articles in question.  I think that we just need to engage in a more solid analysis of who is what rather than an arbitrary and subjective division based on our feelings/intuition.  --Ben Houston 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I edit that article once in a while, but after the move war started, I stopped editing it entirely, feeling that would just make things worse.  Lately I've been making some minor edits to improve readability.  (Someone commented on my last edit that "At least the first paragraph is in English now.")  Some time ago I wrote the "separation program" section, which, after the usual arguments over nomenclature ("separation fence" vs. "apartheid wall" ended up as "fences and walls"), seems to be reasonably satisfactory to all parties.  It's an interesting challenge to write neutrally on this subject.    --John Nagle 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BHouston, can you show me my "tons" of edits to variants of Israeli apartheid? To the best of my knowledge, I edited that article only, mostly between June 24 and 27. Then I came to realize that trying to write a good article was impossible amid the shenanigans. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert as edit counting but just going through the edit history of the main article here  I count 25 edits for Bhouston and 62 edits for SlimVirgin.  I did a quick manual count thus I may be off by a few on both of those but they are roughly accurate.  Like I said, it would be better to have accurate edit counts rather than subjective and OR divisions of who is major and who is minor.  (BTW when I refer to variants of the Israeli apartheid article I am making reference to the fairly dynamic nature of its name.) --Ben Houston 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit counts don't really tell us what's what. Someone making 60 minor, good edits is less of a player than someone making 25 troublesome, aggressive edits. If you want to count edits, I'm fine with it, but if you've had so little input, please take yourself off the major player list. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin: you do seem to be agreeing with me that the current division is fairly arbitrary and problematic.  The second part of your comment is just an retaliatory false dilemma.  Overall, it shows that (1) you are involved in the dispute and (2) you view me as an opposing party (and you insinuate that I make "troublesome, aggressive edits".)  --Ben Houston 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on those stats my addition of prior addition of Zeq, Jayjg and SlimVirgin to the major players and removal of Moshe from the major players list was fairly in line with the general edit counts.  IMO Kim should probably be considered a major player as well even though she was a mediator.  --Ben Houston 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim's name is on the major list now, as she has 137 edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major/central players?

message: *CJCurrie
*Pecher
*PinchasC
*Heptor
*Natalinasmpf
*TShilo12
*Vvuppala
*Moshe
*Beneaththelandslide
*Bcrowell
*Bibigon
*Bill Levinson
*ChrisO
*FayssalF
*IZAK
*Leifern 
*MPerel
*Nagle
*Timothy Usher
I've asked a few people who the central players are, and the ones currently listed as central/major are the ones that all the lists I received have in common. The other names are names mentioned by some people.  Kim, I've put you under minor because not everyone mentioned you, but if you want to move yourself to major, please do. That goes for everyone else. Ditto if you're on the major list, but feel your involvement was peripheral. The names on both lists will be able to participate equally in the mediation; this is just to get an idea of whose participation is necessary for the mediation to be meaningful. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, no one mentioned Nagle's name even as minor player. I added his name as a courtesy because he brought the RfAr, but I've checked his contribs and there seem to be hardly any edits during the dispute either to the affected articles or their talk pages. Am I missing them? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did list him at my sorting. He has 32 main space edits, 28 talk page edits, 22 central discussion edits, let alone noticeboard and related pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked and couldn't see them, though I did only glance. Can you say which articles mainly? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly Israeli apartheid, and the centralized discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a closer look, and the edits to Israeli apartheid, before the RfM was posted, were just a few between June 23 and 27; ditto on the talk page. If we call that a major contribution, the list of major contributors is going to be very large. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved SlimVirgin and Jayjg into the major players category.  SlimVirgin has tons of edits of Israeli apartheid article (and its variants) -- multiples of what I have.  SlimVirgin has also been active in telling Homey that he is a partisan.  Jayjg has been active in making proposals (which included the merging of the Israeli apartheid article into the Apartheid outside of South Africa), created the Apartheid outside of South Africa article (for what some alleged were strategic reasons) and has repeatly merged the Israeli apartheid into the Apartheid outside of South Africa.  I have removed Moshe as a major player -- since he only has a couple edits in the area and was not a major participant on the talk page, I am unsure why he is a major player -- but feel free to re-add him if I am missing something evidence.  --Ben Houston 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a technical note, Ben, I didn't create the Apartheid outside of South Africa article.  In fact, it was created on July 10, 2005 by Bcrowell.   My first edit to the page was on August 21, 2005. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The above separation of minor and major players is pretty inaccurate.  It would be better if we had editing statistics of each individual of the relevant pages, the number of moves each individual has done and the number of AfD's each individual has done.  While I like to think of myself as a major player -- I've actually had a very low number of edits to the main articles in question.  I think that we just need to engage in a more solid analysis of who is what rather than an arbitrary and subjective division based on our feelings/intuition.  --Ben Houston 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I edit that article once in a while, but after the move war started, I stopped editing it entirely, feeling that would just make things worse.  Lately I've been making some minor edits to improve readability.  (Someone commented on my last edit that "At least the first paragraph is in English now.")  Some time ago I wrote the "separation program" section, which, after the usual arguments over nomenclature ("separation fence" vs. "apartheid wall" ended up as "fences and walls"), seems to be reasonably satisfactory to all parties.  It's an interesting challenge to write neutrally on this subject.    --John Nagle 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BHouston, can you show me my "tons" of edits to variants of Israeli apartheid? To the best of my knowledge, I edited that article only, mostly between June 24 and 27. Then I came to realize that trying to write a good article was impossible amid the shenanigans. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert as edit counting but just going through the edit history of the main article here  I count 25 edits for Bhouston and 62 edits for SlimVirgin.  I did a quick manual count thus I may be off by a few on both of those but they are roughly accurate.  Like I said, it would be better to have accurate edit counts rather than subjective and OR divisions of who is major and who is minor.  (BTW when I refer to variants of the Israeli apartheid article I am making reference to the fairly dynamic nature of its name.) --Ben Houston 17:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit counts don't really tell us what's what. Someone making 60 minor, good edits is less of a player than someone making 25 troublesome, aggressive edits. If you want to count edits, I'm fine with it, but if you've had so little input, please take yourself off the major player list. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin: you do seem to be agreeing with me that the current division is fairly arbitrary and problematic.  The second part of your comment is just an retaliatory false dilemma.  Overall, it shows that (1) you are involved in the dispute and (2) you view me as an opposing party (and you insinuate that I make "troublesome, aggressive edits".)  --Ben Houston 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on those stats my addition of prior addition of Zeq, Jayjg and SlimVirgin to the major players and removal of Moshe from the major players list was fairly in line with the general edit counts.  IMO Kim should probably be considered a major player as well even though she was a mediator.  --Ben Houston 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim's name is on the major list now, as she has 137 edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor players?

message: I've never been a part of a RfM before. This particular dispute has been sitting on the page for about a week. I am wondering what the next step is. Thanks. Ste4k 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a point in the near future, if all parties have agreed, the case will be opened. It is usually done by the chairman of the Committee, but the position is currently empty, so things are taking a bit more time while we select a new chair. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A note: Since one of the involved users has left Wikipedia, the mediation is a moot point anyway, since mediations do require two parties. So I would advise you to just concentrate on improving the articles and seeking consensus with other editors and other general pleasantness, and not worry about the mediation. Even if it occurs, there's nothing more to be done until the mediation committee initiates it anyway. Kickaha Ota 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been opened and is now waiting for a committee memeber (or qualified non-committee member) to volunteer to mediate it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shows how much I know. Me == t3h n00b. Kickaha Ota 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship of A Course in Miracles mediation 

message: Please have a look at People of Afghanistan, Hazara. This  user is vandalizing by changing population numbers to what he thinks is true rather than what most resources say, etc. I believe we are having a dispute. Thanx User:hadi1121 11:30, 11 July 2006 (EST)
:If you believe that Tajik will agree to mediation, then you should post your request according to the proper formatting. You should look at dispute resolution steps first, though, because you're supposed to at least try to resolve it before turning to RFM. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with [[User:Tajik]] 

message: This is not so much a request for mediation as a notice to call to the attention of the mediation board that the user identified above seems to me to be behaving in a manner which is not necessarily in the best interests of wikipedia, and in a less than polite manner.  He has only been an active wikipedian for some thirty days now, and he instantly placed himself in a position where he will decide on the importance of the works of others.  It is my sincere hope and belief that someone will seek to contact him and perhaps guide him in learning how to become an effective and considerate "deletionist," or to perhaps involve himself in other matters which he might be better suited for.  I would also strongly suggest that you look over his page of "uncivil" comments, as he seems to find that notifying him of his own uncivil behavior is in and of itself uncivil. Badbilltucker 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *As the subject of this request, I wish to advise that my name is incorrect in the request, it is Gay Cdn.  Thanks.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: Gayd Cdn 

message: Is there anybody in there? (Just nod if you can hear me...)
Seriously, is the Mediation Committee active? I see that User:Essjay has been inactive for about a week and a number of people have asked about the status of Mediation cases... anyone? Thanks, KWH 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, Essjay is busy with the board elections right now. Other than that MedCom has suffered from a chronic shortage of volunteers. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello.... 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes has been closed successfully with a unanimous agreement on a set of principles for editing Lost episode articles. Thatcher131 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes]] 

message: I feel the article project "Raj Yog as a path to realise God" is in-correct.  HeBhagawan and A.Pandey obtain support against me.  From the language of A.Pandey that he single handedly fought vandals and edited Jana Gana Mana & Vande Mataram and my checking of history and discussion of both articles, A.Pandey has done little, so I believe that they are sock puppets.  I request to check the discussion of Hinduism and protect me from bullying for maintaining article of their choice.Swadhyayee 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hinduism 

message: "Move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee." - Does this mean the RfM or the article involved in the RfM? I assume the RfM? - Debuskjt
: It might help if I knew what you were quoting, but I think it's pretty safe to assume this is referring to material in the RfM. Moving probably means archiving... removing would most likely be either a) content that should not be in a request (before mediation begins) or b) refactoring intended to de-escalate the dispute (after mediation begins). I hope that helps. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Instructions, under the "You must not" section. - Debuskjt 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is definately only referring to the RfM page. Things that would be more likely to be moved/removed would be debates occurring on the RfM page before mediation is accepted, or complaints about a particular user (justified or not, since we aren't interested in judging). Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on "content removal" 

message: Assistance I made a RfM proposal for the Morocco article, and any editors actively interested in the discussion have agreed (several were involved in tertiary parts of the discussion.) Please go forward with mediation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could try anyone on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Active Mediators. Of the mediators currently on that list, Flcelloguy and Guanaco have been around the longest. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Please, always feel free to bring any comments, questions, or complaints you have to any of us, myself included. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, or email me. As for the Morocco mediation, I will send an email to the mediation list and see who is available, and hopefully get that started soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I opened your case and listed it under open tasks. Now you just need a mediator. -^demon[yell at me] 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please initiate mediation on Morocco 

message: To all MedCom members:
I've done a lot of cleanup today. All reject cases have been moved to the archives, and their respective case pages have been set up for Speedy Deletion. I've also cleaned up the "Current" cases category. All cases currently listed under "Open Tasks" are under the open cases. All the closed cases that were still listed as open have been moved to the correct category. I plan to clean up all of the pending cases and get them listed later today. That is all. -^demon[yell at me] 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed all pending cases as well, rejecting those that were either not listed properly or failed to agree to mediation. Everything is currently where it should be. All cases that are open are in the open category and are listed under open tasks. All that are pending have been listed under the main page waiting for acceptance/denial. All that are closed have been listed as closed. All rejected have been archived and set for speedy deletion. Now we're finally caught up in terms of page maintenence again. Now to just mediate the actual disputes. -^demon[yell at me] 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just as a head's up 

message: Please note that I have agreed to assist as an informal mediator at Free Republic. Some initial progress is being made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for thinking of us, but you don't have to tell us when you take on an information mediation. If there is anything we can do for you, however, please let us know. Essjay (Talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal mediation 

message: What do we do when our mediator left mid-stream? See Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.Proabivouac 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I'm sorry to hear that Ars Scriptor has left, and also that you have lost your mediator (in this important topic).  The case appears to be a Mediation Cabal case, not a Mediation Commitee case (which is what this page is about).  You can probably get help from the Mediation Cabal co-ordinators at the coordination desk of the MEDCAB. Hope this helps, Martinp23 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator forced off of Wikipedia mid-stream

message: In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Goku_%28Dragon_Ball%29
I saw someone labelled the name '孫悟空' as Japanese? But it is actually Chinese, the Japanese name is 'カカロット' and it is Kanji, could someone solve this problem and see if my edit is good enough? Because it is definitely Chinese as my language 'Korean' has Chinese/Korean = Hanji, so I know whats Chinese and whats Japanese aswell. ( Seong0980 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This matter has been resolved - see this diff. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting someone with experience

message: RE: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0
this page is not showing up on the request for mediation.
in my experience, this page is the absolute most diffcult page to use on wikipedia. It is a nightmare to use.  I made some minor fixes, but in my opinion, it truly needs an overhaul. Travb (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Is unwillingness to agree to mediation the primary reason for rejection of requests?  Goes this mean I should get the consent of other editors in the dispute before bothering to apply? WilyD 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In almost all rejected cases, the reason is the failure of the parties to respond on the RfM page.  It can be helpful to gain the consent of others before applying, but they'll still have to sign the RfM page.  Thanks, Martinp23 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curiousity

message: There are a few unassigned cases for 2 weeks now.  Are you all short mediators? jbolden1517Talk 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We were, but the problem seems to be levelling out now. I'm trying to rouse the sleeping giant on the mailing list. Daniel Bryant 09:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general waiting time is one month, although it tends to be shorter than this ~ Anthøny 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the general waiting time should be around a week, maximum. As I said, we've been short on mediators recently due to inactivity, although the problem is rectifying itself through discussion on our private mailing list as we speak. Daniel 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unassigned cases 

message: Not having filed a request before, if I made a mistake with this request: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide please let me know. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have filed correctly, but the Mediation has been rejected for reasons unrelated to your formatting. AGK (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian Genocide 

message: Please mention the required tags and their arguments on this page. I notified Talk:Duchy of Pless twice, because I didn't know, until I looked atound, that there were mandatory notication tags to be filed by the complaintant (rather than, say, the bot). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good day. I'm not sure I understand your enquiry—can I ask that you rephrase it, in order to allow for me to provide you with assistance. Thank you for your patience, AGK (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More information, please

message: Are there clear instructions anywhere about how to file? I've created a page but it's not showing up in the list. Also, are there tags we need to use to inform the others named? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case, authored by Daniel, is as good a guide as I've seen. If you still have any queries after reviewing that guide, by all means, raise them below (or directly on my talk page), with an angle to specifics, as oppose to a general enquiry, and I will do my best to assist you. Regards, AGK (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help

message: Would a member of the mediation committee be so kind as to provide a status update on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be a slight increase in the time being taken between case acceptance and Mediator acceptance. Obviously this is not ideal—I will make a post to the Mailing List, noting the current case backlog. In the meanwhile, please accept my personal apologies. Regards, AGK (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status Update