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]

Well I'm really only here to have the Pro Bowl links issue mediated, since it's been the biggest and longest-running one. Also, I'll probably write out my argument for the mediator if it gets picked up, but that probably won't be until Thursday.►Chris Nelson 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Do both parties understand WP:CEM and its associated faq? Navou ^banter 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Just noticed the signed request.[reply]

What is in dispute behind the pro bowl links template? Navou ^banter 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on outlining this in my argument. Jmfangio can reply for now he if wants. I think basicaly, I want to link Pro Bowls as we had been doing it in the old infobox for the most part. That is, linking to the correct Pro Bowl but having the link show the year of the regular season. (Ex. [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]]). See Junior Seau for this example in action. Jmfangio, I believe, feels that keeping both years identical, as in [[2007 Pro Bowl|2007]] is just as valid. As a compromise, Jmfangio wants only the number of Pro Bowl selections (see Brett Favre for an example).

I plan on outlining my reasoning in detail so I'd like to do that before any decision is made. Do you mind if I don't reply in depth until Thursday? I'm swamped with studying.►Chris Nelson 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no problem at all. I don't think we are in any particular rush. I'm going to go ahead and open this, I'll let you know on the talk page where we will be doing this. Navou ^banter 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance

Active cases

Archived cases

Commodore Sloat and Armon.