Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests

Participation is limited to two person disputes with no sockpuppet allegations. Because participants may impose remedies similar to arbitration on themselves through this program, editors who participate here should understand the basics of arbitration or be prepared to educate themselves.

Community mediators

Durova
Navou

Community mediators in training

The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators:

Program participants who have a dispute should be aware that trainees will observe mediation and discuss it confidentially with the mediator through e-mail. This discussion is more likely to focus on the technical aspects of running a community enforced mediation than on the personalities involved in a particular case.

Requests

To request community enforced mediation, enter the names of the two parties. Both parties must sign to demonstrate their willingness to participate.

Enter new requests at the end of this section using following template.

{{subst:CEM|user1=|user2=|summary=}}

Tezza1 (talk · contribs) and The Null Device (talk · contribs)

Tezza1, sign here:

The Null Device, Sign here: The Null Device 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Tezza1 has engaged in long-term disruptive editing of Railpage Australia, POV abuse, repeated reverts, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. Evidence and endorsements are shown in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. The Null Device 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to this latter in detail, but I find it amusing that this individual has jumped in at a very late stage in this recent incident, just after I submitted the article for peer review and flooded the article with edits[1], while the other supporters of the current article stand back and nod like donkeys. I suspect there has been an blocking strategy which was organized in another discussion forum. This user has never attempted to discuss the matter on my talk page according to guidelines.[2]

   1 Avoidance
   2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
   3 Second step: Disengage for a while
   4 Further dispute resolution
       4.1 Informal mediation
       4.2 Discuss with third parties

Tezza1 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance

WP:RFCU in progress; inappropriate for this venue. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RFCU is closed. The Null Device 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

►Chris Nelson 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Both editors have been involved in a rather acrimonious date at Template:Infobox NFLactive regarding the date scheme to be used for Pro Bowl games, in which civility and ability to communicate have severely degraded, and edit warring has resulted in protection of the template. Previous attempts at intervention have failed to resolve the situation or lower the temperature. After a discussion with both editors, they have agreed to participate in this process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, there are other outstanding issues, but we never had the opportunity to hash them out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance

Active cases

Archived cases

Commodore Sloat and Armon.