Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 08

Saddam Hussein

I am requesting mediation at Saddam Hussein. User:172 refuses to discuss the issue, so I am not sure what the mediation committe can do. Perhaps it will be necessary to refer this to arbitration. I have attempted to discuss the issue with third parties, they have not shown an interest. Using the page edit history as a poll, I have been unsuccessful in achieving a successful consensus vote. 63.230.159.235

The edit history is not really an appropriate place for an attempt at discussion, it would be better to use the talk page. I presume from IRC that you are also User:Editing Saddam Hussein, if so, the only comment on the talk page from you was not likely to lead to discussion and compromise. I suggest you try communicating with those you disagree with in a positive and cooperative manner. If that fails then you can of course request mediation again, but please try discussion first. sannse (talk) 16:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Christian cross

See Talk and history. I have nothing to say about this. Rantaro 06:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But presumably you are prepared to discuss this in mediation? That's what this page is for, requesting a mediator to help in a discussion. From the look of the talk page it seems this has not yet been discussed fully there, I see only two short comments from you on that page. I suggest talking things through in more detail there first before requesting mediation. There seems to be several questions and comments directed at you on that talk page that it would be helpful if you would reply to. If that doesn't work then please request here again. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

See Talk page again, please. Rantaro 07:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I feel this needs more discussion on the talk page before any mediation. Another mediator may feel differently (in which case they will reply here) but for now please work together on this on the talk page. You might also consider asking for community input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment -- sannse (talk) 10:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with sannse that a request for comment would be the best place to go next. If after obtaining more views from the community, there is still no consensus, then please request mediation, but until then, I think the RfC could be helpful for you. Angela. 12:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL

AndyL, having intially jumped on the bandwagon of Adam Carr's revert war over Lyndon LaRouche, has now embarked upon a campaign of looking for every edit that I have done that bears upon the LaRouche controversy, and deleting it without making an argument as to whether is incorrect or inappropriate. He has so far deleted or reverted 10 articles in this manner. I request mediation. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel is trying to elevate the importance of LaRouche by inserting reference to him in various articles when, in fact, the material provided is not considered important (to for intstance the Voting Rights Act or to the American System of economics) by any third party experts. To have discussion of the LaRouche peace plan in a broader article on Arab-Israeli peace efforts only puts wikipedia into disrepute as no serious sources on these issues include such reference. I welcome input from mediators in this matter. How about Bcorr? AndyL05:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that while awaiting mediation, Andy has continued to systematically delete every contribution I have made to Wikipedia. His collaborator, Adam Carr, demanded that my edits be "reverted on sight." --Herschelkrustofsky 23:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that I've reverted one edit Herschel has made since requesting medation. 00:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have left messages for User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL on their talk pages to see if they are both willing to accept mediation. However, Andy's user page says he's away until mid-July, and Herschel is away until 10 July. I also expect that I should recuse myself as I have also been editing Lyndon LaRouche, but I will consider it if both parties desire me to act as mediator in this situation. BCorr|Брайен 16:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with Bcorr if Herschel is. Otherwise, how about Danny? AndyL 05:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschel has asked me to recuse myself here. Ive asked that he reply here whether he accepts Danny, and if not, to suggest another mediator. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's taken it upon himself to interfere in this mediation and has posted messages on Bcorr and Herschel's TALK pages complaining about Danny. Since Sam has poisoned the well I'm withdrawing my consent to a mediation rather than get into a drawn out process where Sam acts as a self appointed advocate and vetoes the entire mediation committee because of his own grievances. Since Herschell has listed me in his arbitration request along with Adam and John Kenney I'll just proceed on that track.AndyL 14:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, and I'm sorry that this has taken so much of your energy with such an unsatisfactory ending. I'll leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche to let them know officially that it is out of the hands of the Mediation Committee. Sincerely, BCorr|Брайен 16:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, it must have been so very trying, having someone object to your attempts of biasing the mediation. For the record, a mediator is ment to be a neutral party, not a partisan. Sam [Spade] 16:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, I don't even know Danny and I don't see how it's your place to judge or interfere. I just recognised his name from some talk page or another and my recollection was that he's fair and experienced. AndyL 17:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that. I stand by my advice to krusty tho, as fair as danny may well be, he is far from impartial in these sorts of matters. As far as me judging, interfering, and knowing my place... I'll leave those sort of matters to those wiser than yourself, young grasshopper :). Sam [Spade] 19:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Rorschach567

X-Men a page I significantly built up, is being carelessly editted by User:Michael Rawdon. I have no problem with additions to the page but deletions and almost complete revisions to a perfectly good article are uncalled for. Thus far, Rawdon has refused to negotiate and I would like to request mediation.

I've left a message at User talk:Michael Rawdon asking if Michael is interested in mediation. Angela. 05:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will accept mediation. I have no particular preference for which members of the Mediation Committee handle this affair. I would like to note up front that I feel I've been very careful in editing the article (I've mainly been trying to edit it for clarity, conciseness, relevance and correctness), and that in my opinion User:Rorschach567 simply disagrees with my edits. -mhr 17:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Danny will be mediating this. Angela. 19:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23

There seems to be a deadlocked dispute over the article Synarchism. I indicated my willingness to accept mediation in Talk:Synarchism, and DJSupreme23 is apparently also willing to accept it.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have asked User:DJSupreme23 to confirm he is willing to participate. Please could you also both look at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and let me know if you have any preferences as to the mediator. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I have no preference -- --Herschelkrustofsky 19:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept the mediator. - Peter Perlsø 14:32, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Peter, does that mean that you accept mediation and have no preference on who is the mediator? Sorry to be pickly, but I need to be clear on this. -- sannse (talk) 19:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about my late reply. I have no preference. - Peter Perlsø 14:13, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Hi. BCorr asked me to offer my services as a mediator. I have been around Wikipedia longer than 99% of anybody (!), and I'm fairly good at helping people find consensus on articles. Would you like some help? --Uncle Ed 00:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The page that was being disputed has recently been vandalized by Adam Carr, and has consequently become part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence. Unless - Peter Perlsø wants to join in the arbitrated matter, it seems better to put this dispute on hold. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:AndyL and User:WHEELER

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER and associated TALK page. Specific complaint about his anti-Semitic comment on Talk:Early_National_Socialism but also about his general conduct around POV editing and unencyclopedic behaviour. AndyL 05:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am in the process of contacting members of the Mediation Committee to identify one or more who would be able to take on this request. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. I am willing to mediate. I am working full time, so the process might go slower than one or both parties want. -- llywrch 20:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. I too am willing, my time will be intermittent over the weekend, but Ill have enough attn to give to this. -Stevertigo 11:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. I am willing to mediate, preferably by private e-mail. --Uncle Ed 13:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Cimon 17:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:WHEELER has agreed to mediation. Unless AndyL expresses a preference for one of you, it would be great if someone could volunteer to begin the mediation and leave a note here indicating it is under way. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed was involved at some point in disputes on pages related to Nazis/fascism so I don't think he'd be the best candidate since\he might be seen as already having opinions on editing these topics. AndyL 19:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to his user page, AndyL is now away until September 15, so I have moved to this to the archive. If it's still an issue in September, it can be revived, but there seems little point keeping this active for two months with no activity. Angela. 20:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Simonides and User:Jayjg, User:RK, User:Humus sapiens + others

In the following articles, the users above have persistently engaged in 1) propaganda - ie either inserting wrong, unverified or unverifiable material that heavily promotes one POV, or providing only material that asserts one POV and ignores the other; 2) spamming the article rather than contributing, ie filling them with quotes and links which, again, only uncritically promote a POV; and on the article Talk pages, they have engaged in 3) protracted discussions in which they a) stubbornly refuse to accept errors of fact or reasoning; b) slander with baseless accusations of anti-Semitism and other charges, or of "censorship" when in fact a discussion has been requested or when material was in fact removed, because it was superfluous, unverifiable or factually incorrect and shown to be so; c) distort the sequence or nature of events in edit wars and discussions to conjure up further slanderous or unreasonable accusations, particularly ironic since they begin accusing me of actions they are guilty of:

Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism (a now completely junk article), PLO and Hamas (which was voted for deletion), Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the latter is now relatively stable) and perhaps other assorted articles.

Apart from their encounters with me, described above, what these users have in common is a) a heightened sensitivity to any disagreement on Middle-Eastern political and ethnic issues, to which they pretend to have exclusive or superior knowledge when in fact they cannot or do not back up a great deal of what they type; b) a tendency to present or promote common right-wing and/or pro-Zionist (but usually not Zionist itself) cliches and propaganda.

As will be noticed on the Talk pages, I have shown my irritability on several occasions, but in my defense I must point out that 1) some of the propaganda and slander is particularly malicious, not just with respect to myself but larger bodies of people; 2) the users are overwhelmingly persistent and tend to resort to a "pack mentality", grouping together to refute facts or arguments that are quite uncontroversial or self-evident, making it impossible to spend any spare time available on articles that need attention; 3) I am not the only person who has confronted the same people with similar issues. They make editing on Wikipedia, otherwise a pleasure, an odious and exhausting experience. -- Simonides 23:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you willing to try mediation to resolve this, or would you prefer to go straight to arbitration? (Be advised that the Arbitration Committee never resolves anything: they just issue rulings, like stay away from those pages for a month or you are banned from Wikipedia for a week. --Uncle Ed 12:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the Arbitration Committee has so far unanimously voted to refer this to mediation rather than accept the case. Given the relationship between mediation and arbitration, I don't think the mediators should be looking to pawn off cases on arbitration until mediation fails or has been rejected. The fact that Simonides comes here with a combative attitude (maybe because he's involved in a heated dispute?) does not mean the request is not in good faith. --Michael Snow 17:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Michael; the request is indeed in good faith and I am open to any processes that will prevent or restrain a small group of people ruining Wikipedia for every other newcomer who wishes to bring balance and accuracy to articles. -- Simonides 20:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but Jayjg and RK are also completely sincere editors, as sincere as you. If you all approach the mediation with a view to making a good article as opposed to one of vanquishing an idiot, there's no reason you can't work it out reasonably - David Gerard 20:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David, I am not sure to what extent you keep yourself informed of the relevant news events or critical material, so I don't know what your standards for "sincere editing" are. If by sincere you simply mean an obsession with a constellation of topics, yes, the above editors are sincere. If by sincerity you mean the persistent insertion and defense of lumpenquotes, unverifiable points of view, and the substition of reliable, independent studies with "reports" gleaned from dodgy right-wing websites and magazines etc etc then no, I don't call that "complete sincerity." And as you will see from the Talk pages are no end of attempts at reasoning. However, they usually end at an impasse. While it is true that the above members are not the same and do not behave identically, what their edits have in common is objectionable. -- Simonides 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have left messages for Jayjg, RK and User:Humus sapiens to ask if they will participate in this mediation. Angela. 05:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother defending myself against Simonides' many charges, except to say that I disagree with him on just about every point he has made concerning me above. My own concerns with Simonides are threefold:

1) His near constant use of ad hominem and insulting rhetoric directed (on Talk: pages) towards anyone with whom he disagrees. Included in this are his attempts to lump all those who disagree with him into some sort of agenda based cabal, with implications of conspiracy (witness his statements above, and in other in Talk: pages).

2) His consistent pattern of arbitrarily deleting any material with which he disagrees, stating that any who disagree with him are invariably incorrect, or that they must first edit their material to include all sorts of information which he apparently knows, but refuses to include himself.

3) His notion that he "owns" certain pages, and can thus dictate the rules for how they will be edited; he has even gone so far as to delete material he has agreed with (on the anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism pages), on the principle that all changes must be approved by him first regardless of their validity.

Regarding mediation itself, I welcome it. I requested arbitration with Simonides two or three days ago, but was told that arbitration would have to be preceded by mediation. I then asked Simonides if he would agree to mediation, which he said he would. I had (admittedly) not as yet figured out exactly how to get that mediation. However, I must point out, as I have said before to Simonides, I am myself, not RK, Humus Sapiens, or anyone else. I have never even visited some of the pages Simonides has mentioned above. And as much as Simonides would like to place me in some "pack", I can only speak for myself. Jayjg 06:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I welcome the mediation and don't have a preference for a mediator. I can present diffs showing Simonides' possessive behavior, ad hom attacks, repeated removal of Totally Disputed note from an article without discussing it, unwillingness to cooperate, removal of relevant attributed quotes by known experts that differ from his own. I also object to being put in a "pack" (does this put me in the same pack?), some of the articles in the list are not even in my watchlist and never been touched by me. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cimon avaro has agreed to mediate between Humus sapiens, Simonides and Jayjg.

Before I reply to the above I would like to mention these are some of the other (anonymous) users (whose edits are either the same as or very similar to those of the users named): 209.135.35.83, 69.138.236.221, 81.130.200.107 whom I would also invite to mediation if they could be contacted. They are part of the problem, and the problem is not just between me and these people, but of the damage Wikipedia suffers from their abuse of editing privileges. Also, for a list of past abuses by RK on the same articles please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2 which is the second comment requested on him. I would also like to bring attention to the fact that in at least two Talk pages and on the mailing list, discussions have been initiated by RK and Jayjg with my name in the title - this sort of personal abuse and defamation goes well beyond ad hominems and there should be a policy against it.

As for Jayjg's remarks, 1) I didn't say there was a pack, but I did say they resort to a "pack mentality" - a subtle but important difference; there is ample evidence on their collective Talk pages. Please see User_talk:RK, User_talk:Humus Sapiens, and User_talk:Jayjg for examples of the same bunch of users, and other POV pushers keeping each other updated on the articles mentioned or on my edits. 2) Calling my edits "arbitrary" is an egregious example of the distortion of edit histories and Talk pages. In fact I consistently defend and explain my edits at great length and always invite rewording of an article (please see Talk:Anti-Semitism_(archive_9), Talk:Anti-Semitism_(archive_10), Talk:Anti-Semitism_(archive_11), Talk:Anti-Semitism_(archive_12), Talk:Anti-Zionism#Is_the_neutrality_of_this_article_still_disputed.3F, Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict/archive_1 and Talk:Modern_anti-Semitism) I also always make a note of my edit, unlike say RK who edits rampantly and then comes to the Talk page when he can no longer keep up. It's also nonsense to say I don't include material I know myself - on the contrary, when I do, edit wars are begun by RK and co. 3) Another falsehood. The proposal I made on the current Talk:Anti-Semitism page was that we will inspect drafts together, but editors will leave me the final word in exchange for granting them the final word on the fellow article Modern anti-Semitism; although it strays from normal Wikipedia editing, it was a reasonable suggestion aimed at reducing edit wars. I stuck with my word by not editing the other article, but right after unprotection Jayjg and RK proceeded to re-insert material on both articles without discussion.

Re: the arbitration Jayjg requested, he was dishonest even in his request when he stated that there had been disagreements "over a period of months"; at the time of Jayjg's comment I had been on Wikipedia less than one month; today marks the end of my first month here.

As for Humus, who distorts constantly, 1) there has been no repeated removal of templates -- there was one revert of totally disputed (added by Humus) to neutrality because I requested evidence that factual accuracy was in dispute and there was no reply; 2) about the removal of "expert's quotes" (i.e. the right-wing sophist Dershowitz), I can't believe he keeps up with this hilarious nonsense after it was drubbed completely at Talk:Modern anti-Semitism; please note that Humus then proceeded to try and insert the same quote in one or two other articles without reference to the discussion and claiming censorship; 3) the "pack", see above; 4) his watchlist, how would I know what he has on it or why should I care? Because 5) the fact is five articles are listed and he has worked on four of them - does one out of five equate to not being on "some of the articles"? The one article in question is PLO and Hamas, which none of the named editors have contributed to AFAIK, but was listed as an example of similar bias on Wikipedia. As for the complaints about ad hominems that the above users are bringing against me, they are in no way more abundant in quantity or scale than what I have received, and it seems to be their most serious grievance (not one of facts or content) which is itself an ad hominem of a type.

I agree to being mediated by Cimon Avaro - however I believe this mediation will be fruitless if either RK is not involved, or no sysop action on him is taken - he continues to spread unsubstantied slander about me on other Talk pages for users and articles not related to the above in an effort to work up other editors against me, and, as everyone knows, on the Wiki-en mailing list, and this should not be tolerated at all. I still can't figure out why few on Wikipedia has even mentioned the fact that personal abuse and constant harassment are far out of bounds, or replied to the Request for Comment above - are we still waiting for him to apologize or redeem himself? I am not all that sensitive to some of his remarks but potentially valuable contributors may have left already, or would leave, because of people like RK and because the response to them is so slow. -- Simonides 22:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll be brief and would appreciate the same from others. The promised diffs:

1. Arbitrary removal of Totally disputed notice. Note the Simonides' tone: Verified article -- removed accuracy dispute. Humus - don't change headers without reason. [1]. Above he said he's done it only once, here's the 2nd time: [2].
2. Repeated complete reverts. Note, I have changed the wording several times, but none was acceptable or fixable. He repeatedly purged the facts/quotes in their entirety because they don't fit his agenda: [3], [4]
3. Ad hom attack with threats of further abuse: [5].
4. Quoting Simonides from above: "expert's quotes" (i.e. the right-wing sophist Dershowitz). As I already have mentioned, Simonides has extreme intolerance to opinions that differ from his own or to authors he doesn't like. Alan Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard U. Law School, a prominent lawyer, a renown writer and an expert on the matter. If you don't allow alternative (to your) views here, you have a serious problem, because WP is built on cooperation. Note that the circle of those who's in conflict with S. "editing style" is ever-increasing. Unlike him, many of them have experience of many months here. Note, I don't have a problem accomodating all legitimate views, as long as they are atttributed, non-violent and non-extremist. Instead of learning how to get along and play by the rules, he attempts to drive other contributors away. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did change the template twice, because there was, in fact, no factual accuracy dispute the first time and no one challenged the edit. The only revert that I made was when I returned to the article and found it up again - put up by Humus, who did not reply to my question. The rest of his points are farcical - as you will see from the edit comparisons he himself provides, and as the Talk pages I have linked will show, I removed the quotes not out of agreement or disagreement, but because the quotes were based on spurious evidence, if any, and were mere anecdotalism promoting a POV that was already summarised in the article; the so-called threats of further abuse were made in response to the veiled threats dropped on my Talk page and the attemps at defamation on other pages. -- Simonides 08:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Simonides has requested mediation with the above users. See Archive 8 for details. Jayjg and Humus sapiens have agreed to mediation. Cimon avaro has agreed to mediate between Humus sapiens, Simonides and Jayjg, but not with RK who has not yet responded to a message left by Angela asking him if he accepts mediation.

I would be happy to be involved in such mediation. RK 15:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting. Are there any mediators which you would object to handling this case? Angela. 22:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is a great deal of pressure from people not involved in the mediation to un-protect the webpage; can the process of mediation be accelerated? Jayjg 16:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- which webpage are you referring to? Also, we are doing our best with the relative flood of requests, and we are working to identify mediators as fast as we can in general. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The one I'm aware of is anti-Semitism, though I believe Simonides is involved in conflicts with other users on other pages as well. Jayjg 19:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cimon avaro has already agreed to take on this mediation and I have asked Simonides to get Quadell to speak to Cimon before he unprotects the page against the wishes of those involved in the mediation. Angela. 23:29, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I will certainly defer to Cimon before unprotecting the page. Quadell (talk) 01:04, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can we get moving on this? The administrator Ed Poor has jumped in without getting involved in the discussion, unprotected the page, and started making some significant changes which are questionable to say the least. Jayjg 20:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have re-protected it; (was busy/moreinterested with other things today) Ed did not give an explanation apparently, though I did invite him to moderate, (note the difference) I dont know what hes thinking, though. I will talk to Cimon or Jussi or both. --SV 03:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to retract my request for mediation with all of the above users. I am not taking back any of the arguments I have made or factual opinions stated - but I wish to end the animosity, proceed with the editing of articles whose progress has been severely hampered, and would also like to apologize to the other users for any undue stress and misunderstandings. -- Simonides 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:K1 and user:refdoc

User:K1 is indulging in continous abusive and obscene attacks and a revert war on several articles. I have asked him in all ways possible to stop doing this and to return to a sensible discussion. I am more than happy to put his insulst behind and to continue working on Wikipedia together rather than agianst each other. I have asked him to consider mediation but did not get an answer. I would like you to invite him again and maybe something positive might come out of it. Refdoc 11:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Message left at User talk:K1. Angela. 20:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

K1 appears to have refused mediation. Angela. 03:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He has refused, indeed. I hope we can return to it when he has calmed down a bit . Thanks a lot for your efforts, Angela! Refdoc 08:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

K1 is presently blocked again for abusiveness. He may have comment when he returns - David Gerard 14:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FFR, please let us know how long the block is. -SV

On second thoughts, I would like this to be moved to arbitration please. If he wishes mediation we can re-visit this. Seems unlikely, though. Thanks again. Refdoc 15:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) His block must have run out. He has not made any comment. Could you please forward to the arbitration committee that he refused mediation ? Refdoc 21:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He doesnt appear to have been active for the last four days. Just make it clear that his his future ability to edit Wikipedia's pixels is in severe doubt; at which he will either show some bone or throw a fit. Its his choice - what timeframe do you suggest, Refdoc? -SV 03:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He's currently unblocked - David Gerard 11:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Just remove it to arbitration please. Refdoc 12:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)