Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Applied behavior analysis

Applied behavior analysis[edit]

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Inactivity.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 20:55, June 5 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Articles involved[edit]

Applied behavior analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

Discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Paragraph_from_main_article
- See my comment on the talk page regards the discussion on the talk page. WLU

Issues to be mediated[edit]

WLU's reversions of any edits which paint Applied behavior analysis in a skeptical light.
WLU's reversions of any edits which include minority viewpoint, particularly that of autistics.
Ensrifraff's failure to read and address my comments regarding the WP:RS policy and the sources used in the pages.
Ensrifraff's POV pushing on the page.

Additional issues to be mediated[edit]

None listed. 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. --Ensrifraff 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --WLU 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --florkle 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to MarkGallagher's offer[edit]

MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an experienced administrator and user, has accepted an offer to take this case to help out the Mediation Committee with their backlog. However, as Mark is not a member of the Committee at the moment (personally, I'd love him to nominate himself, but that's for another day, and another session of gentle persuasion), it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to MarkGallagher mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above. Voting will last seven days, from June 11 (ie. closes on June 18).

I apologise for the delay in action on this case. Due to absences by a number of the members of the Committee, there has been a backlog. Please note that if consent isn't given by all parties above within seven days, then you will have to wait for a Committee mediator, which could take a fair while at the present rate. On all accounts, I encourage you to take MarkGallagher's offer, however the choice is, of course, yours.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --WLU 11:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --florkle 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

Accepted

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.