Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/47

Rejected request for mediation concerning Humble Indie Bundle

Humble Indie Bundle Request for formal mediation Article Humble Indie Bundle (talk)  Submitted 06 Jan 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Object404 (talk · contribs), filing party Masem (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Humble Indie Bundle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Humble Indie Bundle Issues to be mediated Primary issues Breaking list of games + developers out of sentences for improved readability of the article as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Appropriate_use and navigation to related subjects (participating games and developers). Compare article readability of: Version with bundle contents as child bullets of sentences Version with bundle contents inside introductory paragraphs User:Masem imposing personal definition of article subject and purpose. User:Masem reverting entire series of diffs, removing multiple contributions instead of editing only the parts in dispute. Additional issues (added by other parties) Complaints on the internet about quality and formatting of article as of [bundle contents inside introductory paragraphs this diff]: [1] [2] Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Object404 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Parties manually notified. AGK [•] 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Reject. Formal mediation is only for disputes that concern the content of Wikipedia articles. Its purpose is not to settle personal grievances between editors. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 13:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Vladimir Horowitz

Vladimir Horowitz Request for formal mediation Article Vladimir Horowitz (talk)  Submitted 02 Feb 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users THD3 (talk · contribs), filing party LeonardoCiampa (talk · contribs) Galassi (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Vladimir Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. I have attempted to discuss this matter both on the article's talk page, and on the users' talk pages: Talk:Vladimir_Horowitz#Sexuality Talk:Vladimir_Horowitz#Sexuality_2 Talk:Vladimir_Horowitz#Kiev_or_Berdichev Talk:Vladimir_Horowitz#Unsubstantiated_claims Talk:Vladimir_Horowitz#POV_problems_in_general User_talk:Galassi#Vladimir_Horowitz User_talk:LeonardoCiampa Issues to be mediated Primary issues Issue 1: Sources and citations concerning the sexual orientation of the article's subject. Three (at least) sources indicate that the subject of this article was primarily homosexual. Two of these are biographies, one is an autobiography by another person who knew the subject. Three sources also state that the article subject sought pshychiatric treatment in the 1940s - two of those specify that it was for conversion therapy to alter his sexual orientation. I feel the verbiage on the matter more than meets the guidelines for WP:Verifiability. The subject's denial of being a homosexual is included in the paragraph. But the edit history shows repeated attempts to water down the language in a way that turns the section into a collection of weasel words. Issue 2: Sources and citations concerning the birthplace of the article's subject. Both major biographies of the article subject indicate that the subject was born in Berdichev - although he claimed to have been born in Kiev. I have asked User:Galassi for a citation for Berdichev, and he eventually provided one - although it's a Russian title and not easily verifiable. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1: {Removed as not appropriate for formal mediation. AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)} {Discussion removed as superflous. AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)} Additional issue 2: {Removed as not appropriate for formal mediation. AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)} {Discussion removed as superflous. AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)} Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. THD3 — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 2 February 2011[3]. AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Agree. LeonardoCiampa (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. (Preliminary comment) First, I have removed the two additional issues, as they concerned the actions of another Wikipedia editor and therefore were not appropriate for formal mediation (per criterion 2 of WP:RFM/G#Preconditions). Second, I do not see any attempts at dispute resolution other than basic discussion on the article talk page of the disagreement. Typically, earlier avenues of the content-dispute resolution process should be exhausted before formal mediation is requested (per criterion 3 of WP:RFM/G#Preconditions). AGK [•] 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Role-playing video game

Role-playing video game Request for formal mediation Article Role-playing video game (talk)  Submitted 11 Feb 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users therpgfanatic (talk · contribs), filing party Jinnai (talk · contribs) Bread Ninja (talk · contribs) Nomader (talk · contribs) JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) Nomader (talk · contribs) Masem (talk · contribs) X201 (talk · contribs) David_Fuchs (talk · contribs) Teancum (talk · contribs) Dream_Focus (talk · contribs) Melodia (talk · contribs) Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) Reach_Out_to_the_Truth (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute History_of_role-playing_video_games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Role-playing_video_game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Role-playing_video_game#Why_so_much_of_a_focus_of_WRPG_vs._JRPG Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Videogame_Magazines_Should_Not_Automatically_Be_Regarded_as_a_Reliable_Source Wikipedia:RS/N#Feature_articles_and_what_they_can_be_used_for Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Editorial (opinion pieces) written by game journalists whose magazines have strong financial ties to videogame publishers (in some cases the publications are wholly owned by game publishers and retailers) are being cited as reliable sources to create bias subsections of videogame related articles, such as in the Roleplaying Video game related articles. therpgfanatic believes this violates Wikipedia's policies concerning how to determine the reliability of third party sources. Consumer game journalism magazines and blogs are being deemed reliable sources for extraordinary claims on the basis of the credentials of game journalists (example: having written an article for the New York Times or having a Bachelor degree in an unrelated field). Some editors believe these things make anything written by the same journalist credible. therpgfanatic disagrees and insists that each article needs to conform to the verifiability policies on a case by case basis because the game publications do not have a reputation for fact checking, are not independent of the subjects they report on, and rarely cite their sources when making statements that are intended to be facts (example: writing about trends in videogames but not citing the results of any scientifically created study that compares a large pool of games to determine the trends or makes the claim that a series is the best selling but does not cite how that result was determined). Some editors acknowledge that the sources are not the most reliable but need to be used to write the articles because they cannot find any better sources. Even after some editors invite therpgfanatic to remove the offending content himself, editor Jinnai reverses the edits then threats to ban therpgfanatic if he removes the offending content again, even though he acknowledged on the Wikipedia Videogame Project talk page that the subsection is bias, is composed entirely of opinion pieces written by game journalists and does not rely on any scientific studies of videogame trends. Additional issues (added by other parties) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Therpgfanatic (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Agree.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. See reasons in the talk page.陣内Jinnai 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I simply don't have time to participate in mediation with real life issues and my ArbCom duties. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. This is nonsense. Are mediators going to read through the long talk page discussion, or is everyone just suppose to repeat what they said again and argue here instead? If you have a problem with something being a reliable source, then you discuss it on the reliable source talk page. Dream Focus 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. I feel that this is something worked out outside of mediation. Nomader (Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. There are issues in specific sections of articles in questions that therpgfanatic has issues with that should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective pages, but the core principle that therpgfanatic is complaining about, the reliability of VG sources, would necessarily extend to any field that relies on non-academic works for coverage (like films, books, and television), and would really be best discussed at WT:RS since they would affect the whole project, if what he says is true. Of course, most at the VG project understand his arguments but dismiss them for the fact that we have used these sources numerous times, vetted by WP's FA process, so it's really nothing can be done about it. Neither is appropriate for mediation. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. In the discussion, the complainant repeatedly complains about the standard of video game and RPG journalism, but therpgfanatic's argument goes much further than those subject areas. It affects the whole policy of reliable sources across the entirety of Wikipedia. The nub of therpgfanatic's argument is; that should a reliable source used in a Wikipedia article fail to display its own sources, then it would not be allowable as a source in Wikipedia. therpgfanatic wants a change in the WP:VG reliable sources guidelines, these are of course based upon, and subservient to, Wikipedia policy at WP:VERIFY. This discussion should have gone to RFC or have been moved to WP:V, mediation is the wrong place and too early. The people who keep WP:VERIFY running must first be given the opportunity to put their views forward. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Agree. Or whatever. I wasn't really involved in that discussion (tldr), I only made a related edit while it was going on, and put a stub template for SfD while cleaning up from a previous RPG+OR fiasco (console vs. computer). I think there are really two issues here, RPVG cultural differences, and using editorials as sources. I think that the two problems are too conflated, which I think will leave everyone frustrated, so I don't really care what happens here. In the words of Schmendrick the Magician, "Magic, do as you will." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject because not all parties agree to mediation. An appropriate next step at this point might be to discuss on the article talk page what would be appropriate topics for mediation, because that seems to be the reason behind most parties' declination to participate. Should formal mediation be desired later, a new request can be filed - incorporating as necessary any agreements over what the issues to be mediated are. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Somali people

Somali people Request for formal mediation Article Somali people (talk)  Submitted 25 Feb 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Medicineman84 (talk · contribs), filing party Middayexpress (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Misrepresentation of information Other steps in include Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people Issues to be mediated The genetics page and what should be included Primary issues If to include relevant data which has not been disproved If to include data that is true and gives a bigger picture(Maslit and Fur etc etc) Additional issues (added by other parties) Setting a standard for only peer reviewed material. Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. No earlier steps of the content-dispute resolution process have been attempted, and so this request is not suited for formal mediation at this point. I refer the filing party to WP:MC/P#Prerequisites of mediation (especially #4) and suggest that such other forums for dispute resolution as informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal be pursued. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture 2

Arborsculpture 2 Request for formal mediation Article Arborsculpture 2 (talk)  Submitted 22 Feb 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Blackash (talk · contribs), filing party To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by going to various notice boards. Slowart (talk · contribs) Reames (talk · contribs) Is self outed as Richard Reames with a COI as the creator of the word Arborsculpture and potential COI as an artist in this field. I was not sure which editors I should list, so I listed the two long term editors of the article who have been involved in all the discussions. There have been multiple editors brought in to try to settle this dispute across a range of articles. Articles concerned in this dispute Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) discussion ranging though out the history of this talk page. Axel_Erlandson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) some impact talk page large discussion basically going over the same rhetoric as the tree shaping talk page. Arthur_Wiechula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff John_Krubsack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff Expo_2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff diff diff Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Third opinion Arborsculpture was moved to Tree shaping [4] Some discussion was done here before the move [5] Third opinion Truce SilkTork comes in [6] and tries to mediate [7] SilkTork unlocks the page for editing [8] Suggestion of moving the article back to Arborsculpture [9] RFC [10] Requested move [11] Some attempts at coming to alternative title Shaping forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items Tree art Tree shaping disambiguation page In response I created list of potential title names Slowart recently listed some references for arborsculpture Third Opinion about usage of the word Arborsculpture on related articles [12] RFC Arborsculpture[13] NOPV noticeboard [14] Mediation? [15] More discussion about the title some names offered:- Tree training Temporary or holding title suggestions Shaping trees to form useful or artistic items Shaping trees into useful or artistic items Training trees into useful or artistic items Replying to above title suggestions in detail [16] Staw poll for mediation[17] Listed with the Mediation Committee here Which was initially rejected by AGK but after Admins SilkTork and RegentsPark's comments were pointed out to him he decided to except the listing. Unfortunately due to bad timing on my part the case was closed with no resolution in one way or the other. As things had quietened down at tree shaping talk I decided that I would not pursue this further unless the issue of arborsulpture arose again. When an editor removed 3 alternative names out of the lead. It was quickly reverted and the editor was asked not restart this old argument. Referring to the word Arborsculpture, as became clear on the tree shaping talk. Slowart has 3 times replaced the Alternative names into the lead, with no discussion. I have offered a compromise diff. To which Slowart has replaced the Alternative names into the lead sentence. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue:- Alternative names in the lead of the Tree shaping article. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Blackash have a chat 03:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Slowart (talk · contribs) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. It is a requirement of the Mediation Committee's policy for formal mediation, under WP:MC/P#Prerequisites of mediation, that: no party be using mediation as an interim step for arbitration; and the parties to mediation be capable of working together effectively and in good faith. This dispute does not currently satisfy those requirements, as evidenced by this comment by the filing party and the recent history of the other party's talk page (where, amongst other things, one party ended all discussions and asked the other to not contact him again—with the edit summary "Goodbye"). Whilst mediation can bolster mutual respect and goodwill between editors, it cannot, and mediators will not attempt to, force co-operation. Accordingly, this dispute as it stands is not suited to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Internet in Romania

Internet in Romania Request for formal mediation Article Internet in Romania (talk)  Submitted 11 Mar 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users SoNic67 (talk · contribs), filing party Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Internet_in_Romania Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Article without proper citation. Unverifiable statements. Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. SoNic67 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 17:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Loring Ward

Loring Ward Request for formal mediation Article Loring Ward (talk)  Submitted 16 Mar 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users karebear_1022 (talk · contribs), filing party JzG (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Loring Ward Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues User:JzG Has deleted the Loring Ward article (and another page I've helped to upload) without posting an AfD tag. Seems like he is trolling the Wiki community and tearing down pages without mediation. The Loring Ward page,along with others, I have helped to edit with others from the Wikipedia community. The article in question had references from third party sources and from product reviews. Instead of offering up suggestions, JzG took down the page without editing on the parts in dispute. Additional issues (added by other parties) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Karebear 1022 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Nothing to agree to, no other steps in dispute resolution have been attempted, I barely even know who the requester is. This is just fallout form cleaning up crap left by WP:COI spammer Jbarbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Guy (Help!) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. This dispute relates to administrator conduct, not article content, and is therefore, per WP:MC/P#Prerequisites of mediation, ineligible for formal mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture

Arborsculpture 3 Request for formal mediation Article Arborsculpture (talk)  Submitted 18 Mar 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Blackash (talk · contribs), filing party To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by going to various notice boards. Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) I've listed Martin Hogbin as he agreed to mediation and is one of the vocal editors for the word Arborsculpture. There have been multiple editors brought in to try to settle this dispute across a range of articles. Articles concerned in this dispute Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) discussion ranging though out the history of this talk page. Axel_Erlandson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) some impact talk page large discussion basically going over the same rhetoric as the tree shaping talk page. Arthur_Wiechula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff John_Krubsack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff Expo_2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) slight impact diff diff diff Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Third opinion Arborsculpture was moved to Tree shaping [18] Some discussion was done here before the move [19] Third opinion Truce SilkTork comes in [20] and tries to mediate [21] SilkTork unlocks the page for editing [22] Suggestion of moving the article back to Arborsculpture [23] RFC [24] Requested move [25] Some attempts at coming to alternative title Shaping forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items Tree art Tree shaping disambiguation page In response I created list of potential title names Slowart recently listed some references for arborsculpture Third Opinion about usage of the word Arborsculpture on related articles [26] RFC Arborsculpture[27] NOPV noticeboard [28] Mediation? [29] More discussion about the title some names offered:- Tree training Temporary or holding title suggestions Shaping trees to form useful or artistic items Shaping trees into useful or artistic items Training trees into useful or artistic items Replying to above title suggestions in detail [30] Staw poll for mediation[31] Listed with the Mediation Committee here Which was initially rejected by AGK but after Admins SilkTork and RegentsPark's comments were pointed out to him he decided to except the listing. Unfortunately due to bad timing on my part the case was closed with no resolution in one way or the other. As things had quietened down at tree shaping talk I decided that I would not pursue this further unless the issue of arborsulpture arose again. When an editor removed 3 alternative names out of the lead. It was quickly reverted and the editor was asked not restart this old argument. Referring to the word Arborsculpture, as became clear on the tree shaping talk. Slowart has 3 times replaced the Alternative names into the lead, with no discussion. I have offered a compromise diff. To which Slowart has replaced the Alternative names into the lead sentence. There was some to and froing of the alternative names into and out of the lead by multiple editors. I filed for mediation arborsculpture 2 with Slowart who didn't agree and though a error of my wording that request was rejected. There was some discussion here having the alternative names in the lead [32] the discussion finished on my offer of a comprise diff Slowart removed Cite content I filed an edit warring [33] which resulted in the article being locked for 72 hours. I talked about it here on the tree shaping talk page. Martin suggest to take this to COI noticeboard, which I did. [34] During the talk on COI noticeboard 3 different Ips' come in and removed the cited content from tree shaping again, which was reverted by myself and an other editor. Martin again support removal of cited content this time by making conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. diff I asked him to explain on the talk page. [35] During this time SilkTork locked the article to Ip and new accounts. SilkTork filed for a Topic ban for Slowart and myself at the ANI noticeboard [36] At the listing on the ANI I asked Martin if he would agree to Mediation, [37] to which he stated he is willing to participate. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Alternative names in the lead of the Tree shaping article. Issue 2 Removing cited content Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Blackash have a chat 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Agree. Martin Hogbin I agree to participate in any dispute resolution process, including mediation, as an outside editor who came here in response to an RfC on the subject. There is little point in mediation if the other editor with a potential COI is not a party. I should also point out that Blackash may the subject of a ban from the article, see[[38]]. I think it would make sense to wait until that matter has been settled before considering mediation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Comment Martin, Slowart seems fine with leaving it in your hands [39] Blackash have a chat 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Leaving what in my hands? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Martin read the link, Slowart states if you have energy to continue on to do so. He not going to. Blackash have a chat 12:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Note Blackash and Slowart have been topic banned from tree shaping articles as established in this discussion. I hope they decide to continue to help at the talk page and edit other articles. I imagine this will be a temporary measure so I do not see this as a reason to reject mediation. In fact I think mediation might help them understand why the ban was put in place, and lead to better cooperation and collaboration once it is lifted. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject per developments elsewhere[40]. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Arman Manookian

Arman Manookian Request for formal mediation Article Arman Manookian (talk)  Submitted 08 Apr 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs), JohnInDC (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Arman Manookian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Arman Manookian#Inclusion ofReferences to McClellan Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1; Inclusion of Maj. Edwin McClellan on the topic of Arman Manookian. Factual History: A request for Editor Assistance for inclusion of Arman Manookian to the List of Historically Notable Marines was made. The major consensus by Assisting Editors were that Arman Manookian was not a historically notable Marine because his job title was merely a clerk for the United States Marine Corps and therefore did not warrant inclusion. Moreover, the consensus was that Maj. Edwin McClellan was merely saying nice things about Arman Manookian and that Manookian did not deserve to be included in the History of the United States Marine Corps and therefore to be on the list of Historically Notable Marines. As a matter of fact, one editor opined and gave example that McClellan said nice things because he felt sorry for Manookian's suicide and that McClellan wouldn't have said "his art work was shity." In light of these opinions by the editors, I fail to see how inclusion of McClellan on Arman Manookian's page helps in context. Indeed, there seems to be more reference to McClellan on Manookian's page than of that of Manookian. It is rather confusing and detracts from Manookian's accomplishments independent of the United States Marine Corps since most of the consensus was that Manookian was merely a clerk for the United States Marine Corps. Issue 2 When typing Arman T. Manookian on a Google search, Frazer Art always seems to come up first on the search. This is apparently so as the the title of the article is Arman Manookian and not Arman T. Manookian. When questioned about this discrepancy, a dismissive and evasive answer was given. Apparently, Manookian's full name was not linked. However, if one types Arman Manookian (w/o inclusion of his middle initial), indeed then Manookian is on top of the Google search. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Monte Melkonian (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Decline. Petitioner has been blocked for edit warring on issue #1 and his edits have been reverted by at least two other editors. The second issue does not seem to present a matter properly the subject of mediation. Finally the request for mediation is premature as other dispute resolution avenues have not been pursued. JohnInDC (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Requestor now indef blocked for edit warring, threats & other issues. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning maria orsic

File:Yes This request does not use the required format. The filing party will be contacted and asked to properly complete this request. After an appropriate time, if this request does not use the proper format, it will be declined. For assistance in filing the request, please read the guide to formal mediation or contact the Committee. To re-file this request entirely, add {{csd-u1}} to the top of the page; and, when it is deleted, go here. Message added by AGK [•] 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC), on behalf of the Mediation Committee. maria orsic Request for formal mediation Article maria orsic (talk)  Submitted 01 May 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Christiian203 (talk · contribs), filing party Articles concerned in this dispute Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Christiian203 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Request to filing party: There are multiple problems with this request: 1) The article maria orsic does not exist; 2) The editors involved in this dispute are not named; 3) The previous attempts at dispute resolution are not linked to; 4) The issues to be mediated (that is, what this dispute is about) are not detailed. Please read WP:RFM/G, then fix these problems. Thank you. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Reject. This request is submitted in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Orsitsch, but formal mediation is for current disputes over articles—not complaints about the notability of an article subject. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate venue for this grievance. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests Request for formal mediation Article 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests (talk)  Submitted 08 May 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Kudzu1 (talk · contribs), filing party MosMusy (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted User talk:Kudzu1 User talk:MosMusy Talk:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues User:MosMusy is adamant that Armenia should not be included in the article and has thrice edited the page without consensus, over my (User:Kudzu1's) strenuous objection and the advice of others, to remove it from the article outright despite user-mediated attempts to compromise and the repeated presentation of WP:RS. Additional issues (added by other parties) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Withdrawing request. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Request withdrawn by filing party. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning WBBM-TV

Former On air Talent Request for formal mediation Article WBBM-TV (talk)  Submitted 13 May 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute TVFAN24 (talk · contribs), filing party Deconstructhis (talk · contribs) Wgfinley (talk · contribs) Csneed (talk · contribs) JTRH (talk · contribs) Tvtonightokc (talk · contribs) Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute WBBM-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WMAQ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WLS-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WGN-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WFLD-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Entertainment Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Access Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extra (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted User_talk:TVFAN24 Issues to be mediated An extended comment by the filing party has been moved to the talk page. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Primary issues I feel that former employees of these particular articles should be noted since they were part of the station or TV show. Prior to this editior (Deconstructthis), I have been editing these lists for years, working very hard and no other person other than (Deconstructthis) had a problem with the former talent list. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Agree. JTRH (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Disagree. I don't think I should be a party as I have only tried to mentor TVFAN and that is all. As a member of MEDCOM I think my participation would only further complicate this. I would respectfully request not to be included. I do think this is a good case for mediation though. WGFinley (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Strongly Disagree: TVFAN24 is gaming the system and trying to overrule consensus with MedCab. He/She is asking permission to spam articles with information that has gotten him/her blocked previously (indef once) and information there is a consensus saying isn't needed. Let him/her go to ANI and sway consensus or RFC, but coming to MedCab to ask "pretty please with sugar on top" to go against that consensus, it is gaming the system and shouldn't be allowed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC) This is the Mediation Committee, not the Mediation Cabal. Your comment is confusing because I'm unsure if you meant to say consensus with MedCom and coming to MedCom, or if there is a Mediation Cabal (informal mediation) case that hasn't been cited in this request. AGK [•] 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I get MedCab and MedCom mixed up, my goof and my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. I found it difficult to evaluate the merits of this request, but what was most persuasive was the length of the list of involved parties. The list of parties comprises of at least six editors (and possibly more, because the filing party neglected to list at least one editor, Neutralhomer, and may have omitted others too). Of these editors, it is only the filing party who supports his position. It would be impossible to establish a compromise with such a distorted distribution of opinion, and I further question whether it would be correct to do so, because a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is decision-making by consensus. This request is declined. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Working hypothesis

Working hypothesis Request for formal mediation Article Working hypothesis (talk)  Submitted 20 May 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute T.Whetsell (talk · contribs), filing party Headbomb (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Working hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Headbomb insists on citing Asnwers.com, versus scholarly journal articles on the subject. Moreover, he cites Answers.com incorrectly, which conflates working hypothesis with formal hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Working_hypothesis&diff=430061753&oldid=430060997 Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. T.Whetsell (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Milton Babbitt

Milton Babbitt Request for formal mediation Article Milton Babbitt (talk)  Submitted 09 Jun 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Involved users Colbyhawkins (talk · contribs), filing party Antandrus (talk · contribs) Jerome Kohl (talk · contribs) Heimstern (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Milton Babbitt Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Talk:Milton Babbitt Issues to be mediated Here is the issue in a nutshell, pasted from the talk page: What we think about what Babbitt did is scarcely the point here. The point is what reliable sources tell us. If there is to be any info on this discrepancy between Babbitt's statements and the actual article content, it must be based on reliable sources. It is beyond our remit as Wikipedia editors to make such observations ourselves. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I completely agree that opinion of what happened is not the point. However, what you folks don't seem to grasp is that, in this case, what reliable sources tell us is not the point, either. What IS the point is that two facts do not agree. We as WP editors should present all the facts, not just the ones we may be partial to. Thus, the article currently reads: "Babbitt said his own title for the article was "The Composer as Specialist" (as it was later published several times, including in Babbitt 2003, 48–54), and "The editor, without my knowledge and—therefore—my consent or assent, replaced my title by the more 'provocative' one: 'Who Cares if You Listen?' a title which reflects little of the letter and nothing of the spirit of the article" (Babbitt 1991, 17)." It presents one fact, but not another that contradicts that one. My edit would read: "Babbitt said his own title for the article was "The Composer as Specialist" (as it was later published several times, including in Babbitt 2003, 48–54, although it begins, "This article might have been entitled 'The Composer as Specialist'"), and "The editor, without my knowledge and—therefore—my consent or assent, replaced my title by the more 'provocative' one: 'Who Cares if You Listen?' a title which reflects little of the letter and nothing of the spirit of the article" (Babbitt 1991, 17)." My version draws no conclusion, and makes, as you put it, no "observation". It simply balances one fact with another. If the mention of the opening words is an "observation", then so is the mention of Babbitt stating that he intended the article to be published under another title. Colbyhawkins (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I have noticed that two parties have disagreed to mediation, although one has expressed that he may be persuaded to change his mind. The other, insofar as I can tell, disagrees for an invalid reason, namely the very issue for which mediation is requested. As a newcomer here, I am unfamiliar with what next happens. Does their disagreement preclude mediation? If not via mediation, how does this dispute become decided? Colbyhawkins (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Primary issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Colbyhawkins (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Disagree. Will reconsider if the nominator lists all five parties who have opposed his attempted edit, not just two. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Disagree. Nothing to mediate here; the lack of a source is a complete non-starter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Declined. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning WebGL

WebGL Request for formal mediation Article WebGL (talk)  Submitted 27 Jun 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute ithkuil (talk · contribs), filing party 68.8.9.219 (talk · contribs), filing party (=ithkuil) Kxx (talk · contribs) 67.185.162.47 (talk · contribs) (Anonymous from Shoreline, WA near Microsoft headquarters) 98.232.18.191 (talk · contribs) (Anonymous from Shoreline, WA near Microsoft headquarters) Articles concerned in this dispute WebGL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted See Talk page with a long discussion concerning the validity of the 'Security' section Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues The entire Security section is in fact related to an obvious marketing effort on Microsoft's behalf. WebGL is, in my opinion, the greatest threat to Windows sales. This Context "article" is literally worth billions of dollars right now, and this Wikipedia article IS the future of Windows. If they can kill or severely damage WebGL, which I think they already have just with this one little article, without anyone ever actually demonstrating an actual exploit, that buys them at least a year more of their complete dominance on gaming front with Windows. And Windows gaming is the keymaster for the entire Windows monopoly. My edits to the Security section to point out that the single security report cited links to a 'demo' of an 'exploit' which actually demonstrates no exploits and is obviously a special effect to scare people were simply removed, with the editor claiming they were violations. Bias on the part of the Security editors -- Note that both the originator of the Security section and one of the main editors (or the same person) to that section are not logging in and have IPs that resolve to the vicinity of Shoreline, WA (near Microsoft headquarters). 67.185.162.47 98.232.18.191 http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation&IpAddress=98.232.18.191 This somewhat validates my belief that the "Security" concerns promoted around WebGL are really just an attack vector from Microsoft in order to protect their Windows PC gaming monopoly. Please examine the supposed image "exploit" in the Context "report" -- it demonstrates no such actual exploit, and is obviously designed to scare people. http://www.contextis.co.uk/resources/blog/webgl/poc/index.html My explanation of what the code _actually_ does: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/i1rjx/webgl_considered_harmful_by_microsoft/c206nc9 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Ithkuil (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure or Neutral. See talk page. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning MarshallStrabala

MarshallStrabala Request for formal mediation Article MarshallStrabala (talk)  Submitted 26 Jun 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Mykjoseph (talk · contribs), filing party Novaseminary (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Marshall Strabala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marshall_Strabala Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Dispute/Architect let go from firm In June, NovaSeminary added this copy: “In 2010, (architect's last name) was reported to have been let go from Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala In recent days, NovaSeminary has edited this comment to read that the architect was "let go" from the firm. NovaSeminary sourced this information to “That’s Shanghai” magazine, an entertainment/listings magazine published by Urbanatomy in Shanghai China at http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder This sentence fits the WP:REDFLAG rule: “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.” If NovaSeminary believes this exceptional claim about a supposed (legal) dispute and that the artchitect was "let go" that the architect had six months ago is appropriate then I believe he would need an exceptional source to support it. I do not believe that Urbanatomy’s “That’s Shanghai” magazine, a monthly magazine with an unknown circulation geared to English-speaking residents and visitors, can be considered exceptional. China, as you know, is a country where the Communist Government controls the press and there is no freedom of the press as in the US and other countries. If Urbanatomy is considered exceptional, I would like to specifically know what makes it exceptional. In my opinion, this magazine having been referenced a few times in WP, does not make Urbanatomy exceptional. National awards received by Urbanatomy and having award-winning staff writers might begin to equal exceptional, but I have found no proof of the same. Given the situation, Mykjoseph thinks it would be most appropriate to state that the architect left Gensler in 2010 and not make reference to the circumstances. This could be easily sourced with various sources, including Houston Culturemap, http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/04-09-11-in-and-outs-of-the-new-houston-ballet-center-for-dance-from-architect-marshall-strabala/ This could also prevent WP from facing scrutiny of this claim from the architect. NovaSeminary wants it kept as is.Mykjoseph (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Issue 2 Prose/List Format For more than two years, the page had been in a professional and concise prose and Building list format, with prose describing his background and key achievements, and a bulleted list or gallery of about 10 photos of buildings he had designed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=408403761&oldid=407687287 Then, suddenly after multiple editors have okayed this format over the years, NovaSeminary said that the Gallery had to be deleted because WP is moving away from having galleries of photos on people. I do not know if this is true, so I would like clarification of this point. In the meantime, most other architects that you find on WP do have galleries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=426921654&oldid=426914530 Then, a few weeks later, NovaSeminary made another edit. In late May/early June 2011, he deleted the list of buildings altogether and converted the page to be entirely prose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=431927719&oldid=431926838 I feel strongly that the page should have a combination of both prose and building list, as most every architect on WP is formatted in this manner. For examples, see: Architect Helmut Jahn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Jahn Architect Eero Saarinen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_Saarinen Architect C.Y. Lee, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.Y._Lee_%26_Partners Architect Henry Cobb, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_N._Cobb Mykjoseph wants the page returned to the prose and building list format. NovaSeminary wants the format kept in the all-prose format as it currently is. Issue 3 Notable Buildings On WP, most every major architect has his/her buildings that they are known for designing highlighted in their Infobox. This was true for two years or so on Marshall’s page as well http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=433390089 , until June 15th, 2011, when NovaSeminary without any input from other editors, deleted these buildings (Shanghai Tower, Burj Khalifa, 5 Canada Square, LG Arts Center, Hess Tower) and his reasoning was that they are not “his (the architect's) work.” This seems contrary to: a. The media stories written over several years and sourced on his page say that the architect designed these buildings. b. Potentially hundreds of architects featured on WP have their “Buildings” posted in their Infoboxes, whether the architect owns the firm or not when the work was designed. For example, see these architects whose buildings were done at firms they did not own: Adrian Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Smith_(architect) Daniel Libeskind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Libeskind Ross Wimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Wimer Mykjoseph wants the notable Buildings mentioned in the architect's Infobox as it was previously. NovaSeminary wants the copy kept as is with no buildings mentioned in the architect's Infobox. Issue 4 Introductory Graphs For a few years, this page had a description in the second graph: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=358843977 -- that mentioned that this architect had designed the Burj Khalifa, as well as two other supertall buildings, the Shanghai Tower and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center. Mykjoseph thought this was very relevant because there are probably less than 5 architects in the world that have worked on more than two of the world's supertall buildings. This architect has worked on three of them. To be specific, this architect led the design of the Shanghai Tower, now under construction, and slated to become the world’s second tallest building. He worked as part of the design team that designed the Burj Khalifa and the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center. Mykjoseph had previously summarized this simply as being that this architect “designed” these buildings (not trying to imply that there weren’t any others, but not getting into the fine print of the specific role) but that wasn’t appropriate for NovaSeminary. NovaSeminary thought this was too promotional, and in May he deleted that copy, removed reference to the types of buildings this architect had designed (i.e., office buildings, performing arts venues), and changed it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=428751539 Now with NovaSeminary’s edits, the reader does not learn what types of buildings that this architect has designed. And the reader doesn’t learn that this architect has designed any other supertall buildings until the reader gets to the SOM section in the middle of the page. In fact, the reader never learns on the page that the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center is one of the tallest buildings in the world, unless they click the building’s page link and visit that separate page. And the reader doesn’t know that he designed Shanghai Tower and that it will be the world’s second tallest building, until the Gensler section of the page. Mykjoseph wants the description of the architect's work restored closer to the second graph cited above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=35884397 ) and again reference the type of buildings that the architect has designed, rather than the current generic language by NovaSeminary of "design of notable buildings". NovaSeminary wants the language kept as is. Issue 5 Personal Information For over two years, this page has had this brief reference to where he lives and it has been accepted by multiple editors. It had read," As of September 2010, (architect's last name) divides his time between homes in Shanghai, Houston, and Chicago." and used the source of Houston Business Journal, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09 On May 13, 2011, NovaSeminary used his WP rule of “cruft,” to delete this sentence. Why is this information about the city(ies) where a person live not appropriate when the same information is welcomed and permitted on included on thousands of other personal pages for business executives on WP. Where the architect lives is not implying anything, it is merely stating a fact that he lives in three different cities, and this fact has been cited in many media outlets besides Houston Business Journal. NovaSeminary stated that the architect' residences are not pertinent because Strabala is not known for his homes but rather for his Architecture work. Well, the same thing could be said for these business executives who are not known for their homes either: Apple head Steve Jobs whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for computers. Todd Stitzer, a business executive whose two residences are mentioned and he is known for his business leadership. William Rondina, a fashion designer whose two residences are mentioned. Architect John C Harkness whose residence is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Architect Campion Platt whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for architecture. . French Architect Jean Nouvel whose residence in Paris is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Business executive Bonnie Newman, whose residence is mentioned, and she is known for her educational positions held. Robert E Murray, a mining executive whose residence is mentioned. Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citigroup, whose NYC residence is mentioned. Mykjoseph wants the language of the architect's residences put back, which adds to the explanation of the architect's life and where he lives. NovaSeminary wants the language as is with no reference to where he lives. Issue 6 LEED Certification For more than two years, this page included this copy: “A member of the American Institute of Architects, (architect's last name) is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles. [3]” The publication Architecture Week was used as the source (see http://www.architectureweek.com/2008/1210/people_and_places.html) (Update to Mediation committee: It would be more accurate for the words “LEED certified” to be changed to “LEED accredited.”) In April, NovaSeminary deleted reference to the LEED certification, without an official WP reason, and for a time NovaSeminary had wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that this architect had. Well , that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced In Architecture Week and many other media that have covered him. For example, see EArchitectUK, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/marshall_strabala.htm Houston Construction News: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KjLBix6LrbIJ:constructionnews.net/pdf_download.lasso?file%3D200605_HO.pdf+marshall+strabala+leed+certification&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi1yB0pxxnldG3TfpJkTd1cADeikvrvcpRfDX9VjNPARwViyTH4vPpWnqxPIV8gDF2BiqTz9ulJPKLA5MvgGCtlgO_SLaaIR7rUGZvssU1_PLgO3T2l9RBkTEmJ4Rk-3jiP28b7&sig=AHIEtbSS10LRHMnx0WK18JByc99SF5H8lw&pli=1 This LEED accreditation is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. Unfortunately, the USGBC that is the keeper of the LEED registry does not keep its online registry fully up to date, otherwise its website would be sourced. Also, I should point out that most architects do not typically communicate the specific type of LEED accreditation that they have. Instead they simply list it as “LEED AP.” See examples here from LinkedIn and other sources: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robandersonarchitect http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothykentaia http://www.linkedin.com/in/nikkolaljames http://www.ghp1.com/people/micah-padgett http://www.jeffraven.com/ Mykjoseph wants the "LEED AP certification" referenced. NovaSeminary does not want any mention of LEED certification unless there is a source that provides the precise type of certification that the architect has. Issue 7 Website Link For some months, this architect’s WP page has had the link for his 2DEFINE Architecture website. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&oldid=422710552 Then on May 26th, NovaSeminary said that this link could not be on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=431024085 At some point, Mykjoseph suggested that this link be posted but called “2Define Architecture website instead of “Official Website.” Mykjoseph said this because saying “Official Website implies that it is the architect’s official website, but in reality it is his firm’s. The firm includes other partners so it can’t be both his “Official Website” and the firm’s . See Mykjoseph’s June 7th edit at, (after which NovaSeminary deleted link altogether and no alternatives offered): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=prev&oldid=433067126 Mykjoseph wants the site link (or the partners portion of it) reinserted. The prior link that was used was: http://www.define-arch.com/partners.html NovaSeminary wants it kept as is without any link to the site or a portion of it about the architect. Issue 8 Lawsuits Within about 24 hours after the lawsuits were filed by the architect's two prior employers, NovaSeminary had added the suits to the second sentence of the page, and to a special new graph called "Employer Lawsuits. Mykjoseph made an attempt to add a sentence to balance and make this more neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Strabala&diff=434885152&oldid=434845956 NovaSeminary did not accept this and undid the edit. Mykjoseph wants neutral/balanced language added to both the second sentence and the Employer Lawsuit graph to support that: 1) There is an assumption of innocence as it applies to civil cases (I am not a lawyer so unsure how to phrase this), which not everyone would know. and 2) that there is a problem in the US with the filing of frivolous lawsuits (as these two suits are expected to be, from my architect sources). Frivolous lawsuits have been raised as an issue across many business fields, from medicine to politics, and covered by many US media outlets. NovaSeminary wants to keep this copy as is. Issue 9 Architect's Name The page has begun with the architect's most commonly used name (long version of "M S", since it has been online. Since two lawsuits were filed a few weeks ago, NovaSeminary has changed the first use of the architect's name to "Jay Marshall Strabala". Mykjoseph believes that the article should begin with the person's most commonly used name and refer secondarily to his birth name, as Mykjoseph edited on June 28. NovaSeminary rejected that and wants the story to start with the birth name and not reference the shorter version of the name till it appears in second reference.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Disagree. Mykjoseph (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Mykjoseph (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (In response to NovaSeminary's suggestion of Third Opinion, I specifically did not chose that option because it has no force whatsoever within WP, as I understand it. The Third Opinion ruling only stands as a suggestion, so in my view, it would be a fruitless effort. And, the RfC would be unfairly weighted toward NovaSeminary, because all of his WP editor and administrator friends can all to easily (as I have seen done elsewhere on Wikipedia DR matters) gang up and not give fair review to these matters.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Disagree. There are several dispute resolution steps Mykjoseph skipped. Mykjospeh should try an RfC or third opinion. As written, this fails at least Preconditions #3 & 4 (and probably #2 the way the requesting editor has challenged my behavior and motives). I also ask that Mykjoseph be warned about making the sorts of comments he made at the very end of this request's talk page comparing my good faith efforts at removing promotional POV text with slavery and Jim Crow laws. Novaseminary (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Ben Gurion International Airport

Ben Gurion International Airport Formal mediation case Article Ben Gurion International Airport (talk)  Submitted 23 Jun 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Snoozlepet (talk · contribs), filing party 109.66.213.122 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Ben Gurion International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Putting a message on the IP's talk page but got a response saying "wiki is misleading and so are you..." multiple times Requested page protection: Ben Gurion International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), however nothing yet. Issues to be mediated An airline announced that it will be suspending a specific route for the coming season and is scheduled to resume service the following season (the route was operated year-round). Should these flights be treated as seasonal flights or year-round with the start and end dates added to it? Primary issues Per Delta schedules and booking engine, the airline's nonstop flight between Atlanta and Tel Aviv (vice-versa) will be suspended from September 1st and will resume next summer. WP:AIRPORTS page content states that when an airline doesn't operate the route for a specific season, denote it as "seasonal". This route is suspended for the winter and will resume next summer (hence seasonal). However, the IP continues to change it back to year round but putting the start and end date for the route. He also thinks that the airline will operate it year-round next summer. Winter 2012/13 schedules have not been published yet and it is too far to tell whether or not the route will resume. Unless there is a source stating that it will resume next winter, it should be left as seasonal for now. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Michael Kennedy (Dublin politician)

Michael Kennedy (Dublin politician) Request for formal mediation Article Michael Kennedy (Dublin politician) (talk)  Submitted 11 Jul 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Laurel_Lodged (talk · contribs), filing party Snappy (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute S-par template (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of WP:3PO that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 "The "s-par" template lists the name of the parliamentary constituency for the given member. It does not list the political party to which the member is affiliated. This may be seen from the precedents of all neighbouring legislatures that use the same template. There is no indication that the template varies across wikipedia. Even if such evidence was produced, the local usage of the template would indicate that such variance would not be indicated in the case of Dáil Éireann. Issue 2 That 3PO is non binding and may be freely disregarded. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Decline, because the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process have not been used. Inter-party discussion or a request for comments would be an appropriate next step. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Abortion

Abortion Request for formal mediation Article Abortion (talk)  Submitted 25 Jul 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute NYyankees51 (talk · contribs), filing party Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) DMSBel (talk · contribs) JJL (talk · contribs) EdwardZhao (talk · contribs) RoyBoy (talk · contribs) Gandydancer (talk · contribs) Michael C Price (talk · contribs) 71.3.232.238 (talk · contribs) Kaldari (talk · contribs) LeadSongDog (talk · contribs) 74.5.176.81 (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Jmh649 (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) Kaldari (talk · contribs) Lionelt (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Abortion#Request for comment Page fully protected for one week Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues There is one issue - the lead sentence. Some favor the way it was from 2006-2011, some favor a change. There is a dispute over whether to use a medical definition and which medical definition(s) to use. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not participating, as I'm pretty sure my involvement in this dispute has been limited to requesting page protection at times of unusually high edit-warring. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sure.--EdwardZhao (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not interested. I haven't actually been involved in this particular dispute, and have no strong opinion about it, other than that it's brought out some unpleasant editing behavior. MastCell Talk 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Agree. Though I'm not sure I'll be of much utility to the process. In any case, recent accusations between editors may have poisoned the well. No strong opinion on the result except a) that assertions should be based upon V in RS and b) that any medical assertions should further be subject to MEDRS. I doubt that either of those is seriously controversial. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Agree. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Disagree at this time. May revisit if present options cannot be reduced to 2 contenders; mediation to push beyond that might be helpful. - RoyBoy 23:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Agree, though reluctantly at this point. I would have preferred to see the RFC, also requested by NYyankees51, closed first. JJL (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Disagree for now, per RoyBoy and per JJL's preference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Agree. – Lionel (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion

Opposition to the legalisation of abortion Request for formal mediation Article Opposition to the legalisation of abortion (talk)  Submitted 02 Aug 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute NYyankees51 (talk · contribs), filing party Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) CWenger (talk · contribs) DeCausa (talk · contribs) LedRush (talk · contribs) Lionelt (talk · contribs) LedRush (talk · contribs) Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) PhGustaf (talk · contribs) DD2K (talk · contribs) Haymaker (talk · contribs) HuskyHuskie (talk · contribs) Andrew c (talk · contribs) Jp07 (talk · contribs) Andrewa (talk · contribs) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) Unscintillating (talk · contribs) Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) Kenatipo (talk · contribs) NickDupree (talk · contribs) VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs) TheFreeloader (talk · contribs) LonelyBeacon (talk · contribs) ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) kwamikagami (talk · contribs) Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) Safety Cap (talk · contribs) Kotniski (talk · contribs) Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) Hans Adler (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) PassaMethod (talk · contribs) Chonak (talk · contribs) Nat682 (talk · contribs) Lyricmac (talk · contribs) Wnt (talk · contribs) Runningonbrains (talk · contribs) Ohiostandard (talk · contribs) Bdentremont (talk · contribs) Wasbeer (talk · contribs) Chaos5023 (talk · contribs) Softlavender (talk · contribs) Koavf (talk · contribs) Rivertorch (talk · contribs) Objectivist (talk · contribs) Chzz (talk · contribs) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) Amakuru (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Anupam (talk · contribs) Marauder40 (talk · contribs) Quantling (talk · contribs) Mistico (talk · contribs) Tznkai (talk · contribs) Bielle (talk · contribs) Tapered (talk · contribs) Cs32en (talk · contribs) Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) Born2cycle (talk · contribs) (I added all users who participated in the informal mediation. If I missed anyone, please add them. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)) Folks, I invited everyone who participated in the informal mediation. If I didn't, I would be accused of canvassing. Hopefully since this is a special circumstance we can move forward even if not all parties agree. (Sorry if this is not a proper place to write my rationale.) NYyankees51 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I was not involved in the informal mediation, but I'm disturbed by the decision, how it was made, and the implications to how other titles are decided in WP, so I've added myself. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Articles concerned in this dispute Opposition to the legalization of abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Support for the legalisation of abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement Talk:Pro-life Talk:Pro-choice Talk:Abortion-rights movement. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues The titles of the articles. The mediation cabal case linked above provides most of the background. The move propsals were discussed at great length here and here and here before moving to informal mediation. The closing of the cabal case and the resulting move have raised more issues discussed here and here. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) The possibility of changing the number and/or scope of articles on this topic (see my comment under Agree below).Kotniski (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) ... Points about the primary issue [since this subsection seems to be devloping into a discussion, any objection to moving it to the talk page?]--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I think that's a fine idea, but please leave my initial point here and move the discussion that followed on it to the talk page with a crossreferencing link. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) A major difficulty with the close of the previous mediation is that it ignored policy, specifically WP:TITLECHANGES "do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view" and overall WP:AT "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". In order to be able to form consensus without drowning in a sea of alternatives, this mediation should first resolve whether to follow these elements of policy (which would probably restrict the available naming schemes to Pro-life and Pro-choice, Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement, or Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movement, or very similar options) or to ignore them (which throws the floor open to invented schemes like the current one, and probably means that only an invented scheme will be accepted). —chaos5023 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The comment above illustrates the problem with this mediation request (I don't mean to single out the editor, as others are making similar claims). WP:AT was manifestly NOT ignored, as a straightforward perusal of the mediation page will show you. The argument that supporters of "pro-life" were making based on WP:COMMONNAME was explicitly found not to carry enough weight in the closing. Lastly, consensus was found in the mediation; we should all be aware that consensus does not mean unanimity. People should be challenging/appealing the closing, rather than immediately try to re-run process until they get an outcome they like.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The "finding" that COMMONNAME did not "carry enough weight" is ignoring WP:AT, because there is nothing at WP:AT that justifies giving it less weight in this situation. The interplay between COMMONNAME and neutrality is neatly addressed there at WP:POVTITLE which explains that following common usage in sources is being neutral. What terms are used more commonly than pro-life/pro-choice in reliable source to refer to these topics? "Opposition to the legalization of abortion"? Everyone knows that's absurd. And this invented title is a clear violation of WP:TITLECHANGES (another section of WP:AT) which states, "do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view". The argument that these names are in common usage only in the U.S. is what should carry very little (if any) weight, because the whole abortion issue is primarily American, as made abundantly clear by the content of the articles. No, the only way to find in favor of these titles is to ignore policy as clearly stated at WP:AT. This closing is outrageous. The only potential reasonable defense is to invoke WP:IAR, but there is simply no good reason for that. To argue that Wikipedia is improved with these blatantly contrived titles is absurd. I'm particularly bothered that an experienced admin would close a discussion with a decision that is so contrary to Wikipedia consensus as reflected in policy. That means the admin is either unfamiliar with that consensus and policy, or he's disrespectful of it. Either way, it's a big problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC) With the greatest respect, it's just your opinion that commonname should be read that way. We don't just deal in your opinion, but that of the community. Commonname was not ignored, either in discussion or in the closing. The closer counted it as not important enough, given the evidence of usage, to overcome neutrality concerns raised by many editors. That was the closer's reading of consensus. What's more, endlessly repeating "commonname" as if the evidence for using "pro-life" on this basis was never challenged and discussed during the discussion is a serious misrepresentation of what happened in that mediation. The closer had evidence from both sides regarding the claim of commonname. As such, the closing should be challenged, not the mediation effectively re-run until a minority of editors get an answer they like. As it stands, a consensus was found, which means that there is no need to elevate the issue to formal mediation. You need to challenge the finding of consensus rather than claim, as this request effectively does, that there was no consensus found.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Have you read WP:POVTITLE? It's not my opinion at all. I'm just echoing how policy there clearly explains that following COMMONNAME is intrinsically consistent with the neutrality pillar. There can be no conflict, by definition! Do you read it differently? How? You declared that WP:AT was not ignored, but I demonstrated how it was ignored in at least two crucial respects (WP:TITLECHANGES as well as POVTITLE). Splitting hairs about the difference between challenging the finding of consensus and claiming there was no consensus found is above my pay grade. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) You may not see any difference between challenging a closing and pretending the closing didn't happen, but the guidelines to mediation do. As for interpretation of policy in disputes, it is down to reasoned consensus as judged by the closer, not down to you or me as individuals. If disputes could be solved just by everyone sitting down and reading policy, we wouldn't be here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC) WHAT???' Who said anything about "pretending the closing didn't happen"??? Based on what the closer wrote, he either didn't read, or didn't understand, what the policy clearly states. There are cases where relevant policy is unclear and ambiguous, but this is not one of those, not even close. Here we have a situation where the closing admin clearly indicates he feels that COMMONNAME has to be weighed against neutrality, and yet we have policy explaining that there can be no conflict, as following COMMONNAME is being neutral - it's an identity. That's not an interpretation, that's plain English words: "the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment. ... This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, ....". Plain English. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The closing expressed the finding of consensus. You stated there was no difference between there being no consensus found (which is tantamount to saying the closing didn't happen - apologies if you're not familiar with how wikipedia works) and challenging that finding of consensus. I really don't want to get into the substance of the arguments, save that you (and several other editors) are insisting that the evidence for Pro-life's commonname status was substantively unchallenged, which not only misrepresents the debate and closing, it also does not bode well for mediation here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) My dear Rabbit, conflating "no consensus found" with "closing didn't happen" is semantic shenanigans - I'm not playing. The closing admin did not find consensus (that doesn't mean it wasn't there - just that he didn't find it), which he tacitly admitted by saying that consensus is merely "relatively clear", and yet he made a call (against the consensus that was there but he didn't find, and policy) anyway. I never even subtly implied "that the evidence for Pro-life's commonname status was substantively unchallenged" - your straw man argumentation makes rational discourse impossible. If you would please reread and think about my actual and carefully chosen words without imposing whatever the heck you presume I'm saying on them instead, we might actually be able to communicate. If you're not sure about what I am saying, please ask. In summary, the closing admin went blatantly against consensus and policy that he either didn't read, or didn't understand. First he revealed in his words the mistaken belief that the decision largely rested on weighing COMMONNAME against neutrality. Again, he wrote, "I think the debate has come down firmly on the side of neutrality" and "...be aware that neutrality - not COMMONNAME - is one of the Five Pillars of the project". These statements completely ignore the whole point of WP:POVTITLE which explains how determining the most common name used in reliable sources, and using that for a title, is being neutral. The only reason to make the statement he did was to justify discounting COMMONNAME, supposedly to favor neutrality. Why would he even feel the need to remind us that COMMONNAME is not a pillar, but neutrality is, if the name at issue was not even the most common name? If it's not the most common name, then that should have been the finding. One might argue that he did also argue that there was no common name in that he said "the common name for the phenomenon varies so wildly over the English-speaking world that it cannot be pinned down with any accuracy", but that dubious dismissal relies on ignoring the fact made obvious by the content of these articles that the abortion issue is dominated by American events and influences and usage must account for that. Secondly, he either did not read or did not understand WP:TITLECHANGES which clearly states: do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. This is blatantly obvious since what he did was "invent a name as a means of compromising between opposing points of view!" That's going against consensus AND policy. In all my years at Wikipedia I can't recall a title-related decision more clearly wrong on all relevant counts than this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The two active pages involved here seem to be Support for the legalisation of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion; the others seem to currently be redirects (including double and triple redirects). There is an s/z spelling inconsistency between these two names. The article names should include the word "abortion", to clearly say what they are about. To those unfamiliar with the scenario (including the many who use the English Wikipedia and their first language is not English), the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" look as if they may be about killing in general, and being allowed to choose on matters in general. Often, a formal full clear description of something is longer than the commonly-used name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Notice This mediation is being referenced at Arbitration. NW (Talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. --Kenatipo speak! 23:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC) While standard convention advises against extended comments here, in this situation I think it's not only required but will be advantageous. Firstly, a mediation case with 63 parties is ridiculously unworkable, some made no more than one comment on the talk page or mediation page. I'd also question why I, as mediator, have been added as a party. The issue I see here is that it's not a content issue anymore. Mediation is about working with all parties to come to a consensus on how to resolve the issues, through either collaboration and discussion or at times compromise. What I proposed was a compromise solution, and the administrator closing found a consensus for that option, hence why it was implemented. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a workable one. The issues that remain are related to conduct, and I think these should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee as a larger Abortion case (I note that a RFM for the Abortion article was recently filed and rejected). While only an informal mediator, I ask MedCom, and the parties in this case this: What would MedCom do that I did not? For the reasons listed above, I disagree to mediation. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Neutral. As I have stated many times, I do not care what the titles are as long as they are parallel, and my participation in mediation, if it happens, will probably be minimal. Because I am content with the titles as they stand but could also be content with other titles, I don't wish to cast a vote one way or the other; let's see if the consensus is to let this go on longer or keep things as they are. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Weak agree I'm not really that invested in this, but if mediation can sort out something, then I say go for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I've never been involved in nor even read a mediation, so I don't really know how this works. But I agree to this with the understanding that whatever the result is, it will bring us closer to a final resolution of this matter, whatever such a resolution entails. This ceaseless whining by both sides is not constructive. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree – Lionel (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I don't consider myself a part of this dispute, so I recuse. If that is not possible, then I disagree. For the sake of discussion, mass messaging people for participation in a debate, then mass including anyone that participated in said debate in a mediation seems... well... poorly thought out. I suspect I am not the only person that can't really figure out why the heck they're listed here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. The recent outcome could be improved by slight tweaks. For example, "Support for Legality of Abortion" and "Support for Illegality of Abortion". There's no need to cast one side as unsupportive naysayers, and no need for British (or American) spelling.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree — Safety Cap (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline I do not think that this mediation case, without any further preparation, and with basically the same setup as the last case, can achieve consensus. I might accept to participate if the case was better structured. For example, if the proponents of the different proposals would each write a summary of how they evaluate the various arguments that have been brought forward in the last mediation case. Waiting for some weeks before starting a new case, or restricting this case to a subset of the proposals in the previous case (possibly in a preliminary phase of the case) may also help.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree Lyricmac (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline As far as I am personally concerned, at any rate. I made one suggestion: there was no reaction to it. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome, except, as someone has already said, the titles should be balanced and as neutral as possible. I would like to recuse myself from this mediation. Others may carry on if the will is there. Bielle (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree but object  While it doesn't work to imply broadly that "Christians who argue against abortion and premarital sex" would rather have mothers die than let them have access to legalized abortion, it also doesn't respect the process that just occurred to seek a formal remedy so quickly.  For example, the closing admin could be more responsive; saying "I'm not interested in the content of the article" he/she just ruled on is a reason to talk to him/her about a reclose by another admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline. As I recall, I have never edited any article related to abortion or abortion rights. One RFC comment does not an involved party make. Rivertorch (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Tepid Agree. It's not likely that everybody will be happy with any result to this discussion, but I'll play in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs) Decline. I thought we were done with this. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Weak agree - I am not wholly invested in this, but I am certainly willing to try and contribute to a conversation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline. Lots of reasons. A mediation on this has only just finished, and it had a clear outcome based on consensus and policy. No case has been made against the manner of the closing of the informal mediation (which the proposer signed up to); there is no reason to believe another long round of discussions will produce a different outcome. The proposer says that people have "raised more issues" but there is nothing in the links that followed that was not raised in the informal mediation. It is clear from the so-called "more issues" discussions linked to that the proposer and others are simply not happy with the outcome of the mediation - even though they agreed to it in the first place. This makes it difficult to agree to mediation with them now (what would it mean to say "agree"? What do they mean when they say "agree"?). And last of all, the terms are too vague. Without a clear choice of titles presented the discussion will break up as it did far too often with the last mediation, into people airing their own personal and political opinions without reference to evidence and core policies. All in all, I do not wish to help validate this process as it stands.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree, though I don't expect to be very much involved in the process. I would also suggest (if anyone else is interested) that the primary issue doesn't have to be the titles of "the articles", but more fundamentally, which articles should (separately) exist, i.e. the respective scopes of the separate articles that we want to have. We should consider the possibilities of wrapping up both sides of the abortion debate into one article, and/or/but having dedicated articles specifically about the use and users of the explicit terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice".--Kotniski (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. This issue needs to be sorted out. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC) DeclineThis was JUST done and closed. There is absolutely no need to open another mediation less than a week after the other was closed. This is ridiculous. We all accepted the last mediation, just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean you can open another one. As far as I'm concerned, this is an invalid request. Dave Dial (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) That was informal mediation, this is to move on to formal mediation. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The question is what formal mediation would accomplish that informal mediation did not. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The answer to that question is that formal mediation would accomplish a review of the decision made at the informal mediation. Speaking for just myself, I would not be here if that decision was not so blatantly contrary to policy (i.e., WP:POVTITLE, WP:TITLECHANGES). --Born2cycle (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Willing, but not expecting much to come of it, especially if the goal of those who dislike the last title change only want to change one of the two titles that got changed. V (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline Just because I made a brief comment in an informal process shouldn't mean I'm named a party in formal mediation.  Chzz  ►  06:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree, while noting that IMO according to both Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide this doesn't qualify as a valid request, on several grounds. But if the Mediation Committee take it on, that's fine by me. Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree, and look forward to confirmation of the general importance and value of following WP:AT policy in order to resolve title disputes, as it is designed to do, and in particular of paying heed to WP:POVTITLE which explains that following most common usage in sources is being neutral, and WP:TITLECHANGES which states, "do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view." --Born2cycle (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline I cannot see any possible benefit from an immediate escalation. Its frankly obvious that WP:NPOV is going to take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and its obvious that how things work in your corner of the US isn't necessarily how they work internationally. Any remaining issues unfortunately should be sorted out at Arbcom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree but object per Dave Dial and Eraserhead1. If an informal mediation inevitably leads on to a formal mediation by those not happy with the outcome, then what was the point of the informal mediation? This onward process is unnecessary, but if it takes plae then I'd rather be in it than out of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Leading to formal mediation is not inevitable. It's just likely in cases where the closing admin's decision is clearly counter to policy (WP:POVTITLE, WP:TITLECHANGES), as is the case here. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline and object - what's the point of yet another mediation? This appears to be escalation for the sake of it, really it does. The previous mediation had a perfectly workable outcome, and my feeling is that this escalation is really just going to turn into another dramah for POV-pushing. Sorry about that - but I said everything I thought appropriate in the last one - and I truly am neutral on the entire background subject, so don't have any kind of vested interest in allotting any more of my time (in short supply) to it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) POV-pushing? What POV? I, for one, am pro-choice. For me, at least, this is about following policy to resolve disputes. Are you suggesting that "pro-life" is not the name used to refer to abortion opposition in a majority of reliable sources? If so, what, then, is used instead in a majority of the sources? If not, then what's your point, because WP:POVTITLE clearly explains that when a significant majority of sources uses a particular name, that we are being neutral when we select that name, because we're merely following the sources, not our own biases. This point seems to have been entirely missed by the admin who closed the informal mediation. And he also ignored WP:TITLECHANGES which says not to invent new names to resolve conflicts, but that's exactly what he did. Maybe some here are motivated by a certain POV, but their argument is based on sound policy grounds, and that's all that should matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not an "involved editor" in any of this. I simply commented in the previous mediation. Being named (and shamed?) as an "involved editor" really gets up my nose. The close was a darned good close, in my view, and I'm not prepared to waste time in further discussions on the subject. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Neutral. I also wont participate much. The names shud have the saem 'sence'. As ithers have said give there shuold be no appreatn biase of 'sup[port' given by wikipedia based upn the choicve of titles.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline. This topic bores me. Also, per Chzz. Wasbeer 11:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I commented in the previous mediation, which had an excellent outcome. If there is any trouble with this one or if it goes into a really bad direction (US-centric or asymmetrically non-neutral titles) I may comment again, but I am not going to spend much time on this. I don't know how to translate this into "accept", "decline", or whatever. Hans Adler 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Similar to many of the other comments above, I don't consider myself involved in the informal mediation, nor in the topic at large. I've commented based on an RfC, followed by a request for follow up comment. I'm happy to comment on the outcome of this meditation also, but am unlikely to devote my time to finding a solution. As such, I don't consider myself a "party" and therefore do not feel I should be accepting or declining. WormTT · (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree.Marauder40 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Decline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree, I think a good case can still be made for staying with WP:UCN and WP:AT in general.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Respectfully decline. I am choosing not to participate in this one. It seems a resolution has been reached, and both articles are under indefinite move protection. I do not see why it is necessary to take it to formal mediation and even the ArbCom. If formal mediation is found to be really necessary, you guys are perfectly free to discuss it, but I am not going to become personally involved. --Nat682 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Respectfully Decline, Titles of articles describe issue well. Neither POV can brand titles. Caveat: links fr/ 'branded' terms need to be locked in.Tapered (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Agree —Quantling (talk | contribs) 01:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Decline Already resolved in the MedCab. This will be a waste of time and I have no interest in it. DeCausa (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Decline I prefered the previous phrasing but I have no interest in joining a new discussion on the subect. Regards.Mistico (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Interim comment: I view a number of issues as salient. (1) A number of parties to the case have declined to participate in the case; but many of those parties, self-professedly, have no significant involvement in the dispute. This committee has historically been open to redacting the list of parties to include only those with a major involvement. If the significant parties consented to mediation, then we could proceed. (2) There is a pending request for arbitration relating to this dispute. Mediation and arbitration are mutually exclusive; one cannot run in tandem with the other. If the request for arbitration was accepted, then mediation proceedings for this case could not be opened. Also, I worry that a dispute thought to warrant arbitration is unsuited to mediation—a voluntary, non-binding process that relies on its participants being flexible and receptive to compromise. (3) I note the statement above by the mediator of the former case, in which he states that the dispute was settled during the last mediation case (held by the MedCab). I am not sure how accurate that evaluation is, but I note that it was made in conjunction with statements above by many of the parties that are wearied by this dispute. I cannot allow this committee's resources to be wasted on flogging a dead horse. Awaiting further comments from the listed parties, and the outcome of the request for arbitration. AGK [•] 09:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Reject. The Arbitration Committee has accepted the parallel request for arbitration, so this dispute will take the route of arbitration and not of mediation. Thank you anyway for the input and comments. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)

Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) Request for formal mediation Article Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) (talk)  Submitted 16 Aug 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Maryland Pride (talk · contribs), filing party Toddst1 (talk · contribs) LonelyBeacon (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maryland_Pride#Northwestern_High_School_.28Hyattsville.2C_Maryland.29_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwestern_High_School_%28Hyattsville,_Maryland%29#Re-assessment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northwestern_High_School_%28Hyattsville,_Maryland%29&action=history Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Way too many conflicting parties/editors giving their own input on what changes need to be made to the article, and when changes are made to appease one editor, another will come through and state they are completely unhappy with the revisions made. Blatant hypocrisy... I have been chastised numerous times for content either added or omitted from this article, but when I go look at the article of another school that is a "Featured Article" (a school that was specifically pointed out by Wikipedia to use as example to base an article off of) I'll see the EXACT same content that was either removed from the article I was editing OR I was told the information was violating some sort of Wikipedia policy and thus it's affecting the quality of the article. There have been many different editors which have been through the Northwestern article. Again, many have seen the content of the page and determined it was quality work for the most part and went as far to access the Discussion page to highlight what needs to be done to improve the quality of the article so it can move up on the quality scale. Out of the blue, another random editor will come out of nowhere and start slapping red flags everywhere and eventually it will get to the point where an article that was recently rated a C-Class article, is now somehow a Start-Class article. I have specifically been accused of basically being a "hard head" and refusing to comply with the guidelines set by a specific editor, and subsequently threatened by said editor(s) citing they would find a way to make it so I was banned from further editing the Northwestern article. The most insane part is (based on what they cited to come to that point) I wasn't responsible for the edit/revision that infuriated this editor. Additional issues (added by other parties) There has been a tremendous amount of un-sourced, perhaps trivial information added to this article over time (such as the lyrics to the fight song), some of which has been repeatedly added. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I believe there are some WP:OWNership issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. I have no opposition to any mediation, however, I really think that there are more informal interventions that have not been tried yet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. I don't believe this is at all necessary (previous requests for 3rd party mediation by MP have told him/her that this is a non-issue) but I will play along. I think that the article definitely needs more eyes on it and it is clear that the distributed consensus isn't working. Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Rejected. I agree with Toddst1 that this dispute would benefit from the input of a neutral party, but mediation is not suited to situations that require that kind of involvement (mediators are not custodians). Additionally: formal mediation is not suited to this dispute, because at issue ultimately is not a matter of content, but the behaviour of one (or more - I did not have to examine the specifics in great detail) editors. I suggest that you all ask an administrator to review the conduct at play, and ask them to determine the editor whose involvement is counter-productive. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion moved to WT:RFM. AGK [•] 11:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Vulva

Vulva Request for formal mediation Article Vulva (talk)  Submitted 20 Aug 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute circle3382 (talk · contribs), filing party ivan3man (talk · contribs) logan (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Vulva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of [[41]] that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Pictures go beyond the purpose of teaching what a "vulva" is, and are not necessary for the description and discussion of "vulva". Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Circle3382 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Disagree. Logan Talk Contributions 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Rejected. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Coca-Cola Silver Art Bar

Coca-Cola Silver Art Bar Request for formal mediation Article Coca-Cola Silver Art Bar (talk)  Submitted 28 Aug 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Scoobydoodreweve (talk · contribs), filing party Articles concerned in this dispute Coca-Cola Silver Art Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 - Coca-Cola Silver Art Bars are actual items that were made in the late 1970's and are bought, traded and sold (frequently on Ebay). Many newcomers at coin shows ask about the history of Coca-Cola silver Art Bars, thus several of us thought it would be prudent to describe these bars on Wiki. These bars typically have around 100 to 150 active listings on Ebay and the price can range from $50 to $3,000. With the price of silver increasing, these bars have become ever popular. I am confused as to why a historical item, like a 1 ounce silver bar, detailing the history of the old coca-cola bottlers would be controversial. The purpose of the listing was purely educational in nature...most of these coke bottlers are no longer in business, hence the value. This is a benign topic and I welcome a chance to discuss further should there be any questions. Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Scoobydoodreweve (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Rejected. Request is malformatted, because not all the required data is provided. Also, the sole issue in question (of listing "Coca-Cola Art Bars" in an article) is to me, at first reading, so minor as to not be suited to formal mediation, and in any case the issue can probably be resolved by referring to current policy. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute

Middle East Media Research Institute Request for formal mediation Article Middle East Media Research Institute (talk)  Submitted 17 Aug 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) Severino (talk · contribs) Hyperionsteel (talk · contribs) WLRoss (talk · contribs) Nableezy (talk · contribs) AnonMoos (talk · contribs) Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Middle East Media Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute ORN#MEMRI NPOVN#MEMRI Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues There is a ongoing dispute as to whether MEMRI should be included in the Category:Propaganda_organisations category. We have been debating this endlessly on the talk page without resolution. It does not appear that compromise is possible, so I would like to submit this issue for mediation. Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. Wayne (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know whether MEMRI is a propaganda organization, and haven't expressed an opinion on the matter (only on the fact that the word "propaganda" can have much more negative connotations for some people than others), so I'm not sure why I'm really involved in this particular aspect of things... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Agree.--Severino (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. I endorse the terms of the mediation but I can't promise I'll have the time to invest in this dispute. I will weigh in at the right times and respond to requests aimed at myself in a timely manner but for now that is all I can promise. WikifanBe nice 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. nableezy - 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Rejected. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning India

India Request for formal mediation Article India (talk)  Submitted 02 Sep 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs), filing party SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) Quigley (talk · contribs) Elockid (talk · contribs) Pfly (talk · contribs) ElockidAlternate (talk · contribs) Nev1 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues I, Realhistorybuff have provided verifiable, high quality sources such as a book by Robert Arnett named "India Unveiled" which states empirically that India is the world's oldest living civilization with an unbroken cultural continuity of at least 10000 years and the official portal of the Indian Government. The users mentioned above (nev1, elockid etc) are repeatedly deleting VALID facts giving me lame excuses! The line regarding the riches of India being mentioned in the bible and few ancient texts are also accurate, as you will realise once you go through the link - "India Unveiled". I also mention that India is an emerging superpower with extremely credible, verifiable unbiased sources and these lines are also being deleted. Additional issues (added by other parties) The users responsible for deleting the content and thereby vandalizing the article, come up with baseless, ludicrous, ridiculous excuses to delete the content that I put up. I have a feeling (and it is just a feeling) that some of the usernames are the same person using multiple accounts! Realhistorybuff (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Realhistorybuff (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Rejected. A request that is submitted with a note that "The users mentioned above […] are repeatedly deleting VALID facts giving me lame excuses!" indicates that WP:MC/P#Preconditions 5) and 8) have not been met. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Portuguese language

Portuguese language Request for formal mediation Article Portuguese language (talk)  Submitted 15 Sep 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Susomoinhos (talk · contribs), filing party PedroPVZ (talk · contribs) Pignoof (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Portuguese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page. Primary issues User PedroPVZ constantly cleans my attempts to correct the beginning of the article, where it is said that Portuguese "is a Romance language that arose in Northern Portugal and spread, with the Reconquista, to Southern Portugal". In fact, Portuguese was born in Galicia, which included the present-day Northern Portugal: the southern part of Galicia, called "County of Portugal", become independent and then it spreaded the language to the south. See the articles "County of Portugal" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language#Galician-Portuguese_period". The arguments of user PedroPVZ to exclude any mention of Galicia are purely political and doesn't respect the historical data. I have a degree in Galician Philology and gave PedroPVZ some citations of famous linguists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPVZ), but he rejects any explanation. He wants Portuguese language to be born just in Northern Portugal and unfortunately for him it's impossibe go ten centuries back and change History. It's not the first time user PedroPVZ changes this item, as you can see in the history of the article. Susomoinhos (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Susomoinhos (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Please use earlier methods in the dispute-resolution system. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)