| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Central Europe |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Montessquieu, Olahus, EconomistBR, Buffer v2, JdeJ, Pundit, Panel 2008 |
| Mediator(s) | User:JeremyMcCracken |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Central Europe]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Central Europe]]
Request details
Nationalistic dispute over Central Europe, notably about Romania's possible inclusion. + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are the involved parties?
- Montessquieu ( talk · contribs · count)
- Olahus ( talk · contribs · count)
- EconomistBR ( talk · contribs · count)
- Buffer v2 ( talk · contribs · count)
- JdeJ ( talk · contribs · count)
- Pundit ( talk · contribs · count)
- Panel 2008 ( talk · contribs · count)
What's going on?
The article Central Europe has been undergoing a long-standing debate on which nations should qualify as part of Central Europe. Recently, the debate has escalated and has now basically deteriorated into name-calling and all-out war. One user, EconomistBR is now intent on claiming abuse from other editors by esoteric interpretations of hardly-connected comments ( 1) and the dispute is now basically disconnected edit warring, 3RR violations left-right-centre and claims of outrage. I am not significantly involved but I think the current nationalistic war over the article is shocking, and completely unacceptable. + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to defend EconomistBR and point out that Hexagon1's description above is correct in most details, but it was Olahus who started the deplorable trend of claiming that disagreeing with him equals abusing him. I should also point out that there has been consensus between all the involved parties except Olahus. JdeJ ( talk) 08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: The article has been placed under full protection from 21 April to 28 April due to edit warring, for the third time in a few months + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hexagon1, I don't know what the insults directed at me by Olahus have to do with this Mediation.
- But since this was brought up... Hexagon1 makes many mistakes:
- - "is now intent on claiming abuse from other editors" - Wrong, only Olahus offended me.
- - "esoteric interpretations"?? Olahus wrote: EconomistBR, a user from Brazil who knows as much about Europe, as I know about Bhutan".
- This sentence was highly ofensive, basically he said that non-Europeans are totally ignorant about Europe. This was racist, nothing esoteric about that.
- Also... why is
Hexagon1 singling me out? That's hardly fair since
Olahus went on to insinuate that I had bias, that I was a corrupted editor and a vandal. I don't see
Hexagon1 denouncing that. Very strange, I hope you have nothing personal against me.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦
Talk 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- At the time this request was made, you were the strongest opposition to any attempt to even remotely reach a consensus at the article.You weren't able to move past petty personal disputes, and as such were central to the Mediation Cabal request. Plus, your whinging was a quintessential of the way the article had deteriorated into name-calling.
Now that consensus has been reached I would support withdrawing this request if so the editors involved wish. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)An edit war has been going on, and a report of a 3RR violation report is the latest posting on the page, I still think it could benefit from friendly mediation. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- At the time this request was made, you were the strongest opposition to any attempt to even remotely reach a consensus at the article.You weren't able to move past petty personal disputes, and as such were central to the Mediation Cabal request. Plus, your whinging was a quintessential of the way the article had deteriorated into name-calling.
- Go read the Talk Page, you didn't read anything. You simply parachuted in the middle of a 2 month dispute, read the last section and started accusing me. Seriously, read the Talk Page and come back.
- And why the did you mention Olahus' insults here? It has nothing to do with this page.
- Also the Edit War stopped, so much so that the 3RR violation report against Panel 2008 had as result: "Not blocked for now, will be blocked if edit warring resumes".
- The article hasn't been edited for a whole day already so it is at peace. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
Umm, I'd like peace and brotherhood? + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Very nice, who could disagree. On a more serious note, I would like a balanced and verifiable article. Needless to say, there are literally hundreds of definitions on Central Europe. Some Romanian users have been very vocal in demanding that Romania is included in the general definition of Central Europe. The "problem" is that while there are a few sources that include Romania in Central Europe, the vast majority of the definitions (CIA Factbook, Enclyclopedia Britannica etc.) do not include Romania in Central Europe. So while I don't mind mentioning that fact that some sources include Romania (and Croatia) in Central Europe from time to time, I advocate that the main definition in this article should correspond to the most common view on Central Europe. JdeJ ( talk) 08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the approval and implementation of Proposal II on April 28, 2008, I believe that the chances of a return to a full-blown edit war are almost none, that's because Proposal II represents a consensus reached by 18 editors and it is therefore IMO enforceable.
I also would like to point out that Proposal II had its form derived from months of discussion so it encompasses most of the diverging views. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mediator notes
I'll take this case. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've notified the named users who haven't commented here. I want to note a couple of things:
- A straw poll was held on a proposal: Talk:Central_Europe#Proposal_II
- It looks like the dispute is now occurring between two not-named editors, User:Pundit and User:Panel 2008. I'd recommend Hexagon1, the requesting party, add them to the list of involved editors. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added. +
Hexagon1 (
t) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm going to notify them of this discussion. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added. +
Hexagon1 (
t) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to steer the discussion in the right direction to start- please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Comment about edits- not editors. Rather than being concerned with a possible bias by an edit, let's just go by sources. Also, for readability, please place any further comments in the "Discussion" section below. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was a 3RR report against the user that has been changing the article, stating that they will be blocked if it doesn't stop. Hopefully they'll come here; if not, that's probably what will have to happen. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
There have been many heated comments in this discussion from editors on both sides of the fence, but I believe the current consensus does incorporate all reasonable options. Speaking bluntly, the whole discussion was on whether to include Romania to Central Europe or not. As most notable sources do not mention Romania, the initial reaction of many editors, myself including, was not to list Romania there. After a discussion and after going through additional sources provided it was clear, that in some cases Romania is mentioned in CE context. Thus, the consensus was established to simply reflect this fact: Romania is said to be sometimes included (which is also shown on a separate map). I don't really think mediation is much help at this point - there is only one editor who, against the data, insists that Romania must be included unconditionally, but s/he simply does not want to discuss it. Naturally, mediating with this particular editor may bring some positive social results, but is not likely to change anything in the content. Considering the emotional content of posts from Olahus and EconomistBR, the users may be advised to take it easy, and that's it - both clearly acted in good faith and perhaps overreacted to each other's comments, but some time has passed and helped. Pundit| utter 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had seen the article, and usually finding a way of stating that sources differ is the best compromise. It's done that way now, so basically, are there any specific arguments to change that? It does look like only one user is making changes- unless they come here to discuss I'd recommend sending it to
WP:AIV. It looks like that user has had vandalism warnings placed already.
JeremyMcCracken (
talk) (
contribs) 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well said, that was exactly the point I wanted to make.
Pundit|
utter 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more.
Montessquieu (
talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree with the above statement. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more.
Montessquieu (
talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well said, that was exactly the point I wanted to make.
Pundit|
utter 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Olahus seems to be disgusted about this mess. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JeremyMcCracken#Thank_you -- Panel 2008 ( talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's chill out about that, both EconomistBR and Olahus went over the line at some point, but I think they are in consensus per content at least, even if not very happy about the final compromise. In the meantime, I must sadly observe that Panel2008 keeps editing against the consensus. Comments? Suggestions? I will naturally refrain from editing the article if the mediator/majority of the involved request me so... Pundit| utter 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, contacting me isn't going to make me take sides. Since Panel 2008 knows about this discussion for sure, a more in-depth explanation is needed. (Something brief was left on the talk page of this page.) Why should the sources not including Romania be discarded? Do you believe there to be a problem with reliability? Please elaborate. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there has been any more editing of this subject; I'm going to let this go a couple more days, then close it. There hasn't been any rationale given for changing the article; if there are more concerns about moves against consensus, I'd recommend taking it to WP:AIV or WP:AN/I. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Romania is part of Central Europe
For sure, Romania is part of Central Europe. I don't trust 4-5 bias people (who used socks by the way..). I know for sure that I have to trust the Romanian Gov. that says very clearly Central Europe. Panel 2008 ( talk) 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, forget the people for now. We have sources going both ways- some say Romania is, some say it's not. Assuming all are reliable, it has to be included that sources differ, which is the article's current state. Is there a problem with the sources showing Romania not to be in Central Europe?
JeremyMcCracken (
talk) (
contribs) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok we may forget the people now. In the article it is: The region is usually held to include: why can't be Romanian added to the list? It is usually there and sources that state Romania is part of CE are strong enough so that Romania is in that list too. I want a fair judgement and no bias here. I think one can accept Romania in the list since there is 'usually' in front. Everybody knows that there are week sources, and they aren't updated. So, that's the problem with the sources that aren't showing Romania in the list. They have to be updated. Panel 2008 ( talk) 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Panel 2008 is violating the consensus ( WP:CON) reached on Proposal II
After months of edit warring and discussion a consensus was reached, this consensus is represented by Proposal II, in which on 16 unbiased editors participated.
Now Panel 2008 in a show of fanaticism and complete disregard for other people's opinion is bullying us into accepting his POV. Also Panel 2008 is the only editor still causing problem, all other parties have accepted the consensus and moved on.
Romania is Central Europe - Panel 2008 has been repeating this since February, it doens't seem that he will stop. I want action to be taken against him in order to force him to stop. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Solution to the mediation case
My proposal is that there is only one solution to this case: to have Romania included in the list. There are enough powerful sources to state Romania is part of Central Europe. Beside this, there is the word 'usually' in front of the sentence which may be a compromise towards those who tend to think the opposite. And by the way, since all Romanians think that Romania is part of Central Europe, don't you think you should give them credit for that? Panel 2008 ( talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that's about the opposite of what we're looking for, since we're trying to avoid any kind of nationalist bias. I was looking at the discussion on the talk page, and I'm not certain which sources show Romania not to be in Central Europe. One I did find is the CIA factbook. Panel 2008 was concerned that these were outdated; the 2008 factbook shows it in "southeastern europe". (Go to this link, download print.zip in section "III. Multi-file set for low-bandwidth users", and open ro.html). If those who have been involved longer could point to any other sources, we can examine the concern of the sources being outdated. This doesn't affect the fact that existing consensus exists, but it may help to ease Panel 2008's mind. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sources that underline and legitimize Proposal II.
-Romania not CE:
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ -CIA World Factbook
- http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe -UN Statistics
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1E1-Europe.html -The Columbia Encyclopedia
- http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/uncsgn/RES%20(UN)%20E%20updated%20(1-9%20CONF).pdf -UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names.
-Romania is CE:
- Map of Central Europe provided by the Central Intelligence Agency - CIA (2001)
- Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon (1999)
- Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon (1980)
- Géographie universelle (1927)
- Now, whereas the sources showing that Romania is not on CE are regular sources, the sources stating that Romania is CE were researched and are designed to prove that point and have in that their raison d'etre.
- Proposal II tolerated that POV pushing through sources, toleration which is reflected on its language.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, now you play the nationalist card.. give me a break will you? You don't have arguments to state that Romania is not part of CE that's all. If only one source said it's part you have to acknowledge it. But, since there are more sources, one can accept the compromise that Romania is putted on the list too. Panel 2008 ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with EconomistBR with one comment - the map placing Romania in CE that is attributed to CIA cannot be, in fact, really ascribed to them (somebody at University of Texas published this map online as "CIA", without a source though, and the original is not available). It could be e.g. a good-faith mistake. Pundit| utter 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Jeremy, please realize that Panel 2008 has been edit warring for over two months in this article. He fails to respect consensus, and it is blatantly obvious that he will never accept any proposal that doesn't have Romania as a point-blank Central European country - he is purely pushing his own nationalistic POV, and has never once provided a source. Please have him blocked from editing. This has gone on for way too long. Can someone fill out a report on the Admin board for vandalism? --
Buffer v2 (
talk) 00:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should all the people think the same? or agree with you? There are 23 millions Romanians who think other way you think. What's the score then? Panel 2008 ( talk) 14:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and as far as which sources recognize Romania as Central European - they're mostly German (only one english source has been provided). Now there's no rule against providing a source in another language, but there is a page for Mitteleuropa - a German term for Central Europe, and their views of who belongs to it. I think that the German views of Central Europe may be distinct from the english-speaking world views (as evidence of the existence of the Mitteleuropa page) and those German references should be completely disregarded for the Central Europe page. And also, it's obvious that those sources are POV - they were picked and chosen to further the nationalistic POVs of the Romanian users.-- Buffer v2 ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This mediation is useless if one can't add Romania in the list: we should go to MEDIATION
I suggest the compromise to include Romania in the list, since there is the word 'usually' in front. If one can't accept it, then this cabal mediation is useless and I suggest to go further to MEDIATION. Panel 2008 ( talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Facts:
- Romanian Gov. state clearly Romania is part of Central Europe.
- 23 millions Romanians think the same.
- WTF bothers 4-5 bias editors if Romania is or is not included in the list, when 23 millions think that belongs?
- I will reject any form of bias against Romania at this cabal mediation and I will ask to go further to DISPUTE, or ArbCOM if one can't accept Romania in the list. Panel 2008 ( talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Panel2008, help me understand you - how do you know what 23 million of Romanians think? If you can provide sources on the nation-wide polls, they would be most useful in this respect. Also, if you have the results of such a study, we can definitely cite them in the article. Please, acquaintance yourself with the suggestions on
equal validity and
writing for the "enemy". Also, remember that
avoiding constant disputes is something valuable - most of us are
fairly intelligent people, so try to convince us through facts. Just calling us biased editors will not persuade many of your adversaries in this discussion. Of course, all this does not limit your rights to seek different dispute resolution methods allowed in Wikipedia. In the meantime, however, please refrain from further edits. Please, realize, that you may be in
conflict of interest (also, this is the reason why the point of view of Romanian government is not decisive: a country surely can declare its own location, but as long as other major valid sources do not agree, this discrepancy has to be reflected. However, definitely a source supporting the fact that Romanian government explicitly states that Romania in in CE would be really useful as a source and worth including!).
Pundit|
utter 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I will bring it for you. Meanwhile see that even Sarkozy(the president of FRANCE) see Romania as central european country.... [1] Panel 2008 ( talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pundit, don't bother answering to him he is a fanatic and his position has become more extreme with the passing weeks. He keeps repeating the same line and ignores our counter-arguments. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Panel2008, help me understand you - how do you know what 23 million of Romanians think? If you can provide sources on the nation-wide polls, they would be most useful in this respect. Also, if you have the results of such a study, we can definitely cite them in the article. Please, acquaintance yourself with the suggestions on
equal validity and
writing for the "enemy". Also, remember that
avoiding constant disputes is something valuable - most of us are
fairly intelligent people, so try to convince us through facts. Just calling us biased editors will not persuade many of your adversaries in this discussion. Of course, all this does not limit your rights to seek different dispute resolution methods allowed in Wikipedia. In the meantime, however, please refrain from further edits. Please, realize, that you may be in
conflict of interest (also, this is the reason why the point of view of Romanian government is not decisive: a country surely can declare its own location, but as long as other major valid sources do not agree, this discrepancy has to be reflected. However, definitely a source supporting the fact that Romanian government explicitly states that Romania in in CE would be really useful as a source and worth including!).
Pundit|
utter 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources that underline and legitimize Proposal II.
-Romania not CE:
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ -CIA World Factbook
- http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe -UN Statistics
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1E1-Europe.html -The Columbia Encyclopedia
- http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/uncsgn/RES%20(UN)%20E%20updated%20(1-9%20CONF).pdf -UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names.
-Romania is CE:
- Map of Central Europe provided by the Central Intelligence Agency - CIA (2001)
- Meyers Grosses Taschenlexikon (1999)
- Mayers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon (1980)
- Géographie universelle (1927)
Proposal II is based on 8 different sources and was evaluated by 18 independent editors .
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
President of France said: Romania is a country of Central Europe
So be it, now I hope you will all quit this game and accept finally that Romania is part of CE. (see [2]) -- Panel 2008 ( talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please, read our policies on reliable sources and then think if what a major politician said is more important than encyclopedias, atlases, lexicons, etc. No problem with citing him with attribution, though. As long as it fulfills the criteria for reliable sources (which I cannot verify, as I don't speak Romanian). Pundit| utter 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Panel 2008 vandalised the Eastern Europe and the Balkans articles
Panel 2008 vandalised the Eastern Europe and the Balkans articles by removing references stating that Romania is in Eastern Europe.
He received a class-2 warning for each of the violations. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Ok things are getting heated- let me sum up a few points, both with the article, and the issue at hand.
- I'm not an administrator, and can't block anybody.
- There are two discussions going on, here and at Talk:Central Europe; it doesn't seem productive to me as it's going, as the same things are being said in circles both there and here
- Panel 2008 is reminded that Romania is not excluded, but is included saying only some sources show it to be a part of CE
- Sources both showing and not showing Romania to be in CE are of a wide range of ages
- Panel 2008 is asked to stop changing the article until this is resolved
With that said, let me address Panel 2008, since he's on his own side. Sources often disagree, and in the name of neutrality, the article should be worded to reflect that. "Usually" is not a neutral term, as it implies almost all sources state that, when they appear to be about equally balanced as it is. What you're asking for would require all sources to the contrary to be unreliable, which they aren't. Even if the president of France is quoted as saying that Romania is part of CE, that doesn't in any way negate the sources to the contrary.
As per the talk of formal mediation, the odds are very good that this case would be turned away and Panel 2008 reported as a vandal. There was a conflict, and a neutral consensus reached, and you are moving against consensus. If they did accept the case, it's not going to be any different than what was here. I am trying to help you understand that you're violating some guidelines and policies with your edits. A) the current wording is ideal under WP:NPOV, and changing it would violate that, and B) that a consensus was already reached, and has been agreed to by others originally seeking the inclusion of Romania, as you are. The Arbitration Committee has been used for cases this bad, but they won't take a case with one person moving against consensus- they'll block you as disruptive.
There are really two things that can come out of this:
- Panel 2008 can accept what I've said above, and we can leave the article alone, and close this
- Panel 2008 refuses to stop moving against consensus and NPOV. I'll close this, and file reports at WP:PP to protect the page, and WP:AN3 to report the editing against consensus. An administrator at AN3 has already said they would block Panel 2008 if they didn't stop edit-warring.
Please, please realize that everyone here argued with each other over this issue, and eventually found a way to settle things. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring people to the attention of the history page of the Balkans article, where Panel 2008 is continuing to push his POV by removing anything that states that Romania has connections to Eastern and Southern Europe - an undeniable fact; and labeling it only as a Central European country. He is a nationalistic, POV-based vandal, and has gone over the top. If he isn't fully blocked from editing, I will be really disappointed. -- Buffer v2 ( talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of mediator are you JeremyMcCracken? I'm disgussed since you let Buffer (a well-known puppet master, cought with using socks) making personal attacks on me. I haven't seen you told him to watch his language as per
WP:CIVIL.
Panel 2008 (
talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You only attempt to follow the rules when it's for your own advantage. Buffer v2 doesn't deserve a warning, since he is simply expressing his frustration of having to deal with you for over 2 months. You are absolutely out of control. You called every other editor here vandal more times than I can remember but you don't mention that. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of mediator are you JeremyMcCracken? I'm disgussed since you let Buffer (a well-known puppet master, cought with using socks) making personal attacks on me. I haven't seen you told him to watch his language as per
WP:CIVIL.
Panel 2008 (
talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to make any reports because I'm mediating, but if it's extending outside of this article, another user should probably do it. I'll wait to close this to see if Panel 2008 will agree to go by the consensus; if not, they'll need reported. WP:AN3 would probably be best, seeing there's been a report before, but be sure to include other concerns like this. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Facts again:
- Romania is part of CE, and many sources show it to be a part of CE
- Even President of France said Romania is part of Central Europe.
- This has to be reflected by including Romania in the list. Nobody can change what 23 millions think, and especially 2-3 bias editors (like puppet-master Buffer..)
- Until this meditation style is changed, I will changed every day since I know, I have sources to agree with my edits. And your consensus is not reached until I agree with it and Olahus. Something you obviously not achieved yet.
- Personal attacks from puppet-masters are un-acceptable. Panel 2008 ( talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd ask him not to be uncivil, except he hasn't been uncivil. You're moving against consensus. The fact that consensus doesn't match your point of view doesn't mean it is acceptable for you to move against it. You're still not addressing the sources that do not show Romania to be in CE. We've established that they are not all out of date, as was the concern you previously expressed. You need to provide a reason that these sources should be ignored. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, you have your answer from him. He refuses to cooperate. Please keep this mediation open (or will it be archived?) so we can present it as further proof of his vandalism for the report. Thanks. -- Buffer v2 ( talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to wait to close to give Panel 2008 one last chance to sit down and discuss this rather than acting unilaterally. After it's closed, the page will remain here, so you can still link to it. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Another mediator needed
I ask another mediator to handle this, since JeremyMcCracken tries to change my mind instead of promoting bias free from article. He, instead of being neutral he takes sides as above. I have the right to believe in what I want, like President of France for example, you should not try to change my mind or President's but to offer solutions. You failed so far, so I ask again another mediator or else I will go further to MEDIATION or ArbCom. That's all. Panel 2008 ( talk) 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You always do that. Whenever someone doesn't agree with you you simply insult and defame them until they give up.
- Your attempt to tarnish the reputation of JeremyMcCracken is pathetic and shameful.
- JeremyMcCracken could be considered your friend since he is displaying an incredible ammount of patience with you and your shenanigans.
- Whatever patience I had with you is long gone, I am just waiting for you to restart edit warring at the Central Europe article so that I can report you and have you banned, it's useless to talk with you.
- ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Me, and President of France, think that Romania is part of Central Europe. Do you want to change this? You can't. Panel 2008 ( talk) 10:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Me, and President of France??!! You are out of control and you are ridiculling this entire process.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦
Talk 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are out of control. What's your problem if President of France said word by word that Romania is Central European country? You don't like it do you? Perhaps in Brasil you don't know where Central Europe is.. Panel 2008 ( talk) 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
RfC agains personal attacks from users: EconomistBR, Buffer v2
I will open soon a serie of RfC to clarify the personal attacks from users that tried to mock me. Panel 2008 ( talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've asked Panel 2008 to give a reason that the article needs to be changed against consensus, the only thing I've gotten thus far is "because I think different". You can't mediate with someone who won't respect the consensus of other editors. I'm going to go ahead and close this. My advice to the other editors involved would be to bring this up and WP:AN3, since there is an existing report there about this. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)