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

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=}}

WaverlyR (talk · contribs) and Burks88 (talk · contribs)

WaverlyR, sign here: WaverlyR

Burks88, Sign here: Burks88

Discussion

About The Best American Poetry series. We continue to disagree about the editing of this article. We have been through a RFC and 3O (and 4O) and those offering 3O also disagree over NPOV, NOR, and sources and citations. There is also problem with the tone of the talk with one editor speculating (on the RFC and user talk pages) about the identity of the other and characterizing the others motives and behavior.Given the level of animus, there is a need for help from a disinterested party.

The speculation on identity was immediately removed (by me) when another editor pointed out it was inappropriate, which I had not realized, and said so. The mistake was apologized for and has not been repeated since then, and so is (I would have thought) irrelevant to where we are now with this situation, which I agree is intolerable. WaverlyR has consistently edited this entry to remove all content she perceives as unfavorable to the subject, replacing it with material which clearly violates neutrality. By way of example, WaverlyR once inserted a glowing review of the subject (a series of anthologies) by its editor into the "Critical reception of the series" section of the article. She just today attempted to insert a glowing review of the subject by the wife of the series editor into that same section. Other tactics have included introducing new, cumbersome, and unnecessary sections to the article (like a section listing all 300 literary journals which have contributed poems to the series since 1988) in an effort to push further down the page the "Critical reception of the series" section--which contains content WaverlyR has consistently tried to edit out despite more than one editor disagreeing with her. There's more, of course, but I'll stop there--to the extent I've questioned, and do question, the motives of WaverlyR, it is because I have consistently tried to open a dialogue with this person to understand their perspective and they have consistently refused to converse. When someone refuses to engage other editors and yet is making wholesale changes to an article other editors (more than one) disagree with (including repeatedly simply undoing all their changes), it's a natural reaction, I think, to wonder what the heck is going on. Burks88 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance

aeroblue (talk · contribs) and npsguy (talk · contribs)

aeroblue, sign here:

npsguy, Sign here:'npsguy 12:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Discussion

aircraft noise

NPSGuy's position

If I have offended Aeroblue in anyway I apologize. The question here is: "is the placement of Readington Township's elementary school a subject relating to Aircraft noise?" I believe it is not for I know of no noise issue regarding the school and aircraft noise coming from Solberg airport. If there were any issues whatsoever, they would be very small compared to other places. As I explained in the discussion page for ‘Airport noise’, there are a number of schools in New Jersey that have recently been sound proofed or in the process of being sound proofed from the much larger and noisier Teterboro Jetport. Solberg is a very small general aviation airport in a rural area. It almost exclusively flies small private propeller aircraft. As I showed using a Google satellite map on the 'Aircraft Noise' discussion page, the runway that Aeroblue talks about is a grass runway, it is not even paved. Using the Readington school as an issue relating to 'Aircraft noise' is a exceptionally bad example.

Please forgive me for saying this but I am concerned that Aeroblue's post is an attempt at using Wikipedia as a political tool and his choice of Readington schools is not objective as a Wikipedia contributor should be. There are three reasons why I say this:

First, Readington is currently in a long running legal and political battle with Solberg Airport. The Gannett owned newspaper ‘The Courier News’ has a very recent article here ([1]) about the current legal proceedings. One of the criticisms that the Solberg Airport affiliated group ‘Partners at Solberg’ has used in the past has been the placement of the elementary school. Anyone from Readington (like me) and seeing the same criticism here makes one worry about the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Second, Aeroblue is a PAC/lobbyist for the aviation industry and one of his legislative goals is to push laws to remove schools from surrounding airports. On his website www.aeroblue.org at [2] is a handout sent to NJ legislators that accuse NJ municipalities of putting schools next to airports to stop the airports from expanding. Aeroblue proposes closing these schools down as shown here:

Update Airport Safety Zoning Act of 1983: Updates MLUC and Requires NJDOE to prevent construction or expansion of schools located near airports and runway end zones based on NJDOT classification of airport. Requires NJ Office of State Planning to require compliance with Airport Safety Zoning Act during Municipal Master Plan Review. Schools located in these zones delineated at existing airports in 2006 should be divested by December 31st, 2031 to improve school safety unless approved by both legislative bodies.

Readington is the first township named in his list and I fear this Wikipedia article is being used to give his legislative push some form of credibility. I do not believe anyone at Wikipedia would want this.

Third, the Aeroblue.org PAC founder is also the director of the Solberg airport affiliated ‘Partners at Solberg’. As you can see here [3] and here [4] His affiliation with the Solberg airport is why I believe he chose Readington in this article. It seems to have less to do with 'Aircraft noise' and more to do with using it as a political tool for his various affiliations.

Now there are a number of schools in this country and even the state of New Jersey that have issues with aircraft noise. If Aeroblue wishes to address those schools that have been recently sound proofed that would ok with me. The Readington elementary school that Aeroblue uses as an example is a very "bad" example of the issue of 'Aircraft noise'.

npsguy 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Mediators,

I am a little confused about this process. I signed the mediation agreement above and I posted why I removed what Aeroblue said in the article.

Instead of commenting here Aeroblue posted back on the talk page instead. I thought that the purpose of this mediation page was to come to an agreement?

If I am breaking the vandalism rule that Aeroblue claims I am on the other page I am sorry. I can only say that I removed something I thought was irrelevant to a topic and that I thought Aeroblue was using for his organization's political end.

npsguy 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User continutes to violate Wiki rules on deleting posts, reverting, and posting false, personal and defamitory information unrelated to the topic.

The topic is worthy of discussion, and AeroBlue feels that while Aircraft Noise is controversial, there are worthy and beneficial solutions available. NPSguy continues to delete this information.

I would like to suggest a mediator to monitor this section in general, and this user in particular.

AeroBlue 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)aeroblue[reply]

Mediator acceptance

Not accepting this yet, hoping the editors understand what this venue is. I don't arbitrate anything. You have the option to impose enforceable remedies on yourselves here, but you have to do the hard work of choosing them and you both have to agree to them. This could be something like a one revert rule. We're not out to determine who's right or wrong so much as agree to disagree and contain the damage. Is that what you want? Durova^Charge! 04:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active cases

Archived cases