Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

edit

Archive of the request

Involved parties

edit

Mediator: Drini (talk • contribs)

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
  • SqueakBox: [1]
  • Zapatancas: [2]

A clean start

edit

Ok, I cleaned this mess so we can have a fresh start. I know Zapatancas cannot access wikipedia more than a couple of days, so you both could email me with your comments and I will put them here.

The point of a mediation is to find a compromise that satisfies both sides, and a priori condition to achieve that is that you both are wiling to do it. I read many accusations and aggresivity on the request, so here's a personal request: let us put aside all the personal attacks and let us concentrate on what are we going to do now to improve the situation.

Now, I would like you guys to be a specific as you can about what the issue is. I know it's related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related pages, but I wish you could state a few specific points we could focus in. So please each mention what do you think the core issues are so we can work on them. Please don't state arguments, let us just focus on clarify what the important issues for each of you are

Finally, I want to comment that I can speak spanish in case it's needed, but I prefer the discussion to be done in english (given that this is the english wikipedia after all. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues under discussion

Archival of your comments

What mediation is

edit

I've archived your comments to clean the table and try again. I need both of you to understand this.

  • The rol of a mediator is not of a judge. I'm not here to decide who has more fault, and who should apologize for this. Again: I an mot here to decide who should apologize to whom
    I know you both acted on an aggresive way. The point of a mediation is, when 2 or more people have a common problem (for example, can't agree how to present a fact on an article), to look for common grounds and solutions that satisfy all parties.
    But, in order to find a solution, there has to be clear what the problem is, and that's what I'm asking you to do. Is there a problem NOW on which you guys can't agree? Is there anything you want me to do other than decide who should apologize to whom?
    Understand that noone will be able to force any of you to apologize to the other, you both say the only thing you want is the other to apologize, that may never happen. Think about this: you both want an apology, and noone will give one first, you both want this to be done and forgotten, what can you do?. Such matters are personal matters and you both will have to deal with that by yourselves, mediation is not psychology, counseling or social work.

So, is there any other problem dealing with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero? Or is the "I want him to apologize to me" the only remaining issue here?

Your comments:

  • The spelling was originally in Brit English. Zapatancas changed this in defiance of policy and was bitter in his opposition to me trying to reinstate the British English. I am stiull unhappy about this issue anmd want it restorede to British English. Zapatancas has not given any reasons fopr his conversion of the spelling and just attacked me when I tried top bring it up as an issue on the talk page, SqueakBox 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other issue we had was over the sub-articles but that has now been resolved as they are in such a different state to whaty they were in when I first opposed their existence, SqueakBox 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is a time to be 100% honest because, in my opinion, a mediator has better things to do than to waste his time. I have tons of evidence demonstrating that SqueakBox has harassed me for months. I had everything prepared to take him to the Arbitration Committee so he received the usual treatment in cases of harassament. As I wanted to make sure that the ArbCom understood who was the victim I proposed him to request a mediation process. That would make it evident that all his attacks were unjustifed as he would be unable to expose a single reason explaining why he disagreed with my edits or with my behavior (in fact, he does not care about the content of the article). SqueakBox knew that and, because of that, he stopped his attacks on the article and on me (although not totally) because his times of impunity were over. That is why there is now nothing that needs mediation. There has never been anything needing mediation! SqueakBox simply uses the Wikipedia to hurt other people, that's all. That's why he accepted a request for mediation and then he said: well, I think that there are not pending issues!. Zapatancas 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that it is not necessary an explanation about the absurd claim of SqueakBox in regard to the spelling but just in case: When I came to the article, it already used American spelling so I have not changed it (first lie, "Zapatancas has changed the spelling"). When SqueakBox first came to the article it used American English consistently and he mixed spellings, breaking not a rule of the Wikipedia but of the very English language. An RfC was conducted on the matter and the result was that according to the Manual of Style, American English had to be used (second lie: "Zapatancas just attacked me when I tried to discuss it" and third lie: "Zapatancas has not given reasons"). The final result of the RfC is easy to demonstrate, the article still uses American English consistently now, even though Zapatancas has almost not edited it for months. During the RfC, SqueakBox simply insulted the people taking part in it and used every time more extravagant arguments to impose the use of the spelling of his town.
If it is not clear enough: I got tired enough of discussing the issue about the spelling. I have no intention of discussing it again. SqueakBox's behavior is specially unjustifiable if it is taken into account that he has never contributed nothing new to the article. That is, his real aim is to force others to use a spelling against the rules. Zapatancas 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and you are going to eradicate me if I continue editing. Please stop trolling Zapatancas aka SquealingPig aka SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Learn to be civil and a decent human being insteade of accusing my wife of having affairs and me of having a psychiatric problem. I have brought my evidence to the table, I don't actually believe you have any. What will tghe Arbcom make of your eradication threats and youer liobwellopus copmments against my wife. For me this is further proof of the troll that is Zaopatancas. Basically I haven't even finisghed the ranting hatred of someone nwho is ouit to give me a hard time, ya esta, SqueakBox 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will never apologise to this troll, he must apologise for his thoroughly disgusting, nauseating behaviour. His threats to have me erased if I continue to contribute here is a death threat and should be dealt with as such. His accusations of mental illness show who is the sick person here, etc etc, !!!!

  • - For evidence of Zapatancas association with SquealingPig is this:

This concerns the behaviour of

He was then blocked and has now been permanently blocked. It simply is not credible that this nasty troll was not Zapatancas, who already had 2 accounts (Zapatero and Zapatancas, though Zapatancas is nopt a sock of Zapatero), the language used is the same and he has kept up the virulenmt hatred towards me ever since. It is not credible given the timing that zapatancas was not SquealingPig, so iot is indeed zapatancas who needs to apologise ionstead of playing this game with mke. This is the essence of the problem, and this is what needs mediating, SqueakBox 16:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • -

Zapatancas attacks against me on his user page

What I see

edit

Here's what I see from all the past 3 attemps to stablish the issues in a clear an specific way. Both of you have no intention to put aside your grudges and refrain to calling the other one troll and other things. There was the issue of the spelling, which is a minor one, but I don't think that's what you guys called mediation for. One side believes that there's nothing in need of mediation by now, and both of you want the other one to apologize. Anything else I'm missing? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well right now this process is not worth taking forward, IMO, as it isn't going anywhere. As I have said before there are no current conflicts so if Zapatancas will let things be we can live in peace. It is he not I who wanted mediation, I did it to try to satisfy his demands. It doesn't appear to have worked. Thanks for the help Drini, y que le vaya bien, SqueakBox 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am happy to let things rest IMO the Zapatero article is a mess and needs cleaning up pronto. I affirm that I have the right to edit the article without Zapatancas blindly reverting everything I do (eg one day I fixed all the redirects, Zapatancas persistently reverted me). This has all got to stop. I am editing the article right now and will continue to do so, thus again proving that Zapatancas is lying when he says I don't add anything of value to the article? SqueakBox 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

edit

I take it Zapatancas that you are promoting a non-negotiable stance in regards to spelling, ie I try to channge the spelling off we go to arbcom? that I bring up the issue or off we go to arbcom. Or what? Indeed I challenge you to go to arbcom, time someone did something to stop your vicious lies and your death threats. Whgy I am even bothering with someone who has threatened to kill me and accuses my wife of having affairs I cannot imagine but it sucks, SqueakBox 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does your lack of a response mean we can change the spelling back to Brit English, as a number of editors appear to want without a hysterical reaction? SqueakBox 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatancas new harrassment

edit

Zapatancas made this edit [3], leading me to conclude his call for mediation was not sincere. I urge him to read the bit that says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, o sea que si usted no quiere no quiere que cualquiera edita su obra sin misericordia no lo ponga aqui. This mediation has failed ios my conclusion afetr Zapatancas edit today, SqueakBox 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the mediation

edit

Given that one party decided to go for ArbCom unilaterally, and getting no more feedback on the issue from him, I think this mediation should come to an end without a conclusive statement. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed his petition as a user cannot just go to arbcom without getting an Rfc first, which Zapatancas has not done. I am still open to mediation and hope that when s/he comes back online they will focus on the Zapatero talk page and my statements there concerning that article, and not focus merely on trying to witchhunt me, SqueakBox 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatancas vandalising my user page

edit

Heren he vandalised my user page sounding like SquealingPig. Explanation please, SqueakBox 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Zapatancas won't try to follow mediation (he seems to have stopped replying here), this becomes pointless. I'll drop him a note about that. And about the userpage thing, well, there are other ways to deal with that. As a mediator I will to assume good faith on both parties. My role is not to investigate wether SquealingPIng and zapatancas are the same guy, since a mediator is not a private investigator. There are other places on wikipedia that can help you on those issues, but that's not a task for mediators. However I'm on the middle of a travel right now. I'll drop a note on his talk page asking if he has forgotten of this page (so we can indeed close it for good) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware that you are not responsible for proving Zapatancas is SquealingPig and this is something I have now proven beyond any reasonable doubt anyway at the arbcom case but my feeling is that I cannot reach a mediation with Zapatancas as long as he is in denial and making ridiculous and attacking accusations such as that I am SquealingPig. I certainly don't want to see him punished for his past faults, just that he acknowledges that that is what happened, and it has been his utter denial of his past behaviour that has caused me to keep reminding him of it. His current claim that I am vandalising the Zapatero page when I am clearly not doing sso by any objective standaed also makes me feel he does not want mediation he wants a fight. I agree that we have no other option but to close this down unless Zapatancas changes his mind and decides to give this process a go. If he were to do so i would unhesitatingly re-engage in the mediation process, which IMO is bboth necessary and the only reasonable way forward, SqueakBox 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was that it's of no use to continue a mediation when you are already involved in court to the highest authority. mediation was supposed to avoid that. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well mediation certainly takes two and if he chooses to go to arbcom rather than continue on with mediation you indeed have no choice but to close the mediation. It is a shame we never got to discuss the problems in the Zapatero article but there you go. I for one appreciate the help and patience you have tried to offer us in a case that is being talked about even outside wikipedia [4], SqueakBox 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/José_Luis_Rodríguez_Zapatero&oldid=232703748"