Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/48

Rejected request for mediation concerning Falafel

Falafel Request for formal mediation Article Falafel (talk)  Submitted 20 Sep 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Veritycheck (talk · contribs), filing party No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) Cptnono (talk · contribs) Macrakis (talk · contribs) Tiamut (talk · contribs) Andrew Dalby (talk · contribs) Hertz1888 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Falafel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion Editor has solicited feedback via Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 continual reverts to exclude citations supporting the participation of cultures other than Israeli pertaining to the The Falafel's appearance in North America as laid out in the discussion topic on Talk:Falafel, [Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7" and citation]]. The credibility of the citation, Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News and the sweeping statement it makes when numerous other citations show otherwise. Additional issues (added by other parties) The aggressively uncivil tone by some editors (especially Cptnono) has made it difficult to move forward. Cptnono appears to be unapologetic, see User_talk:Cptnono#Civility_on_falafel. --Macrakis (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Veritycheck is a new editor, yet acts like an experienced one; is there a WP:SOCK issue here? On the other hand, Veritycheck has been unfailingly polite, rational, and patient, unlike many other editors in this discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Additional issue 3 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. Veritycheck (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Agree. --Macrakis (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Agree. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Agree. Tiamuttalk 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Agree. -- Andrew Dalby 08:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Do not agree. reasoning Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Decline. I have not been involved in the dispute other than to encourage proper conduct according to WP policies and guidelines. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:00, 25 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. Declined. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Theory of ionic weapons

Theory of ionic weapons Request for formal mediation Article Theory of ionic weapons (talk)  Submitted 30 Sep 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Ishmael-mahmood (talk · contribs), filing party Peridon (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Theory of Ionic weapons (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 what happened was some foolish admin who didn't even read the article properly, deleted it and passed it off as a blatant hoax I can in fact Prove its not a hoax , i contested speedy deletion yet the admins don't understand the meaning of READ THE ARTICLE PLEASE BEFORE DELETION i believe that the admin selected is not up to the job and should have his/her status lowered due to the fact of making a seriously wrong and disgusting mistake of violating my rights as an individual and deleting a perfectly normal and correct page which would educate wikipedians i even said that i can provide evidence! yet no e-mail no nothing and bam deleted. I DEMAND AN ENTIRE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY MY PAGE WAS DELETED im quite upset due to the fact my page which took precious time of my life was deleted because of an absolute idiot who can't read. YOURS DISGUSTEDLY! the case talk page. Primary issues speedy deletion? blatant hoax? Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation i agree to the mediation and my decision is to lower the status of the administrator or even BAN the administrator resposible for this horrible , wrong , stupid and pathetic act the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Ishmael-mahmood (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Agree to mediation. If the complainant can produce some reliable independent sources, I will willingly restore the article. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 30 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. This case is completely unsuited to formal mediation. Declined. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning men's rights movement

Men's rights movement Request for formal mediation Article Men's rights movement (talk)  Submitted 16 Oct 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Jayhammers (talk · contribs), filing party Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Men's rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights#Why_has_this_page_been_changed.3F Although some editors believed that over the last month the entire content of the "men's rights" page was vandalized, following this discussion it was clear that the editors considered the "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" topics as separate entities, just as "women's rights" and "feminism" are separate. Therefore it was prudent to create a new "men's rights movement" page with the original text from the "men's rights" page in order to differentiate between the two terms. Note that "men's movement" is a superset of the "men's rights movement", the "father's rights movement", and various other related movements, and therefore is inadequate to describe the "men's rights movement". Once the new "men's rights movement" page was created, Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted the new page in its entirety, instead automatically redirecting to the men's rights section as it previously had done. After I explained that "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" are two different entities, Fluffernutter claimed that copying Wikipedia content to another Wikipedia content is a violation of Wikipedia:COPYVIO, but I see no case for that. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayhammers&redirect=no#Your_edits_to_Men.27s_rights_movement Fluffernutter then locked the men's rights movement page from further changes. 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 Possible vandalism of the men's rights page on Wikipedia over the last month resulted in all content being removed and replaced with tangentially related material. After several editors contested this, other editors continued to revert the changes there repeatedly. The first issue is the definition of "men's rights". Either the page should describe a list of rights men do not have, akin to what is done at the "women's rights" page, or it should describe the "men's rights movement", which it did until a month ago when the entire page was changed dramatically. It seems that editors of the men's rights article are insistent that "men's rights" is not the same as "men's rights movement", even though in the movement itself the terms are considered interchangeable. If that is the case, a page must be created for the men's rights movement, separate from the men's rights page, just as there is a separate page for feminism and women's rights. Since the "men's rights movement" is different from "men's rights", the men's rights movement page should no longer redirect to men's rights. And since the authors of the original "men's rights" page clearly treated the two terms as synonymous, it is reasonable to move the original "men's rights" content, prior to the extensive overhaul that occurred over the last month, to a separate "men's rights movement" page. Feminism does not auto-direct to women's rights; nor should men's rights movement automatically redirect to men's rights. It is most reasonable to create the "men's rights movement" page with the originally intended content rather than reworking it from scratch. If any of the content violates Wikipedia policy, it ought to be discussed as with any other article, and remedied. But to throw away all the material that described the men's rights movement without replacing it under a new heading is a huge waste. Keep in mind that the men's movement is a superset of the men's rights movement, and therefore is not adequate to describe it. This is what the men's rights movement page should look like if "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" are considered separate entities: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=455767410 If it is the evaluation of the mediators that "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" are indeed the same entity, then it would be reasonable to restore the "men's rights" page to its original state before the vast number of changes this month. It is important to recognize that media outlets who have reported on the men's rights movement, and men's rights activists themselves, have treated the terms "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" as linked: the term "men's rights" is rarely ever used in any context but the "men's rights movement". The following version of the "men's rights" page is an appropriate description of the rights that men right's activists campaign over: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&oldid=455508406 The current version, however, does not represent the rights that men's rights activists campaign over, and therefore either ought to be reverted to the older version, or a separate Wikipedia page for the men's rights movement must be created as previously stated, based on the work previously done, which was done assuming that "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" were synonymous. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 There is concern that expectations for content are being held to an unreasonable expectation in comparison to other pages relating to the opposing viewpoints/ideologies of the vandalizing editors (IE feminism). Quick examples is the use of weasel wording (which is runs rampant within the feminism article) and an overuse of Citation needed tags for every single point made within a sentence, regardless of the sources provided at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Or the idea that a paragraph describing how female inmates have been provided a program for release that has been openly denied to male inmates that meet the same criteria (in violation of constitutional law), within a section called "erosion of men's rights: Equal protection under the law: Sentencingg disparities" would somehow not be related to men's rights (as in the concept of civil and human rights rather than the men's movement. IE, how the vandals have defined it.) because it doesn't have a secondary source that links it to men's rights (while still maintaining the article can not be about the movement IE, conflicting expectations) --Kratch (talk) 02:39, 16 October 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. Jayhammers (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Er, something between "decline" and "huh?" No content dispute here, at least involving me; my involvement consisted of reverting a copyvio twice and then protecting the page to prevent further copyvios. Last time I checked, the mediation cabal didn't deal in copyvio-handling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Agree. My involvement is due to the choice to rewrite the content under the men's rights article based on a definition separate from the original articles intent, rather than simply renaming the article appropriately, or moving it's content to a new article more appropriately named. Furthermore, I have concerns over the stringency (IE nitpicking) in which editors are holding policy over the men's rights article, as compared to other articles of opposing views. --Kratch (talk) 02:25, 16 October 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. No obvious dispute, and filing party has been blocked for two weeks for harassment, so we will not be accepting this request at present. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Comparison of color models in computer graphics

Comparison of color models in computer graphics Request for formal mediation Article Comparison of color models in computer graphics (talk)  Submitted 27 Oct 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Steve11235 (talk · contribs), filing party RHaworth (talk · contribs) Jacobolus (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Comparison_of_color_models_in_computer_graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted I am unable to provide links. 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 real issue is that Roger has used his administrator powers to permanently rename the article. He renamed it twice previously, at which I put it back to its original name (RGB, HSV, and HSL Color Models from a Computer Graphics Perspective). He has previously stated his intention to delete the article. Renaming seems to be a prelude to deleting, as it effectively "hides" the article. The name he has assigned is irrelevant to the content. I am NOT asking for any sort of mediation involving Jacobulos. I mention him only because his name is all over the talk page. While we have exchanged very tense discussion messages, he has not altered the article. I have asked him for a "reset" in our relationship and that we work together to resolve forking of content under the general topic of color. The issue is real, but renaming or deleting my contribution is not the solution. I contacted Roger via his user discussion page this morning. He deleted my request for cooperation and, presumably, returned to rename the article I wrote. His only attempt to contact me was a snide remark he left when I first started writing the article. Personally, I think his behavior is "unprofessional" in the extreme. On the article discussion page, I have repeatedly called for civility and for no changes to be made without discussion. He has apparently chosen to ignore those pleas. 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. Steve11235 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 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. The Mediation Committee does not mediate grievances over the use of administrator tools, which should instead be referred first to the administrator in question, and second to other administrators at an appropriate noticeboard like WP:ANI. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Yoghurt

Yoghurt Request for formal mediation Article Yoghurt (talk)  Submitted 30 Oct 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Kai445 (talk · contribs), filing party Born2cycle (talk · contribs) SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) Knorrepoes (talk · contribs) Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) Laveol (talk · contribs) Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs) Jenks24 (talk · contribs) Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) PeterWD (talk · contribs) AnimatedZebra (talk · contribs) ErikHaugen (talk · contribs) Macrakis (talk · contribs) This user was added by Night of the Big Wind Roux (talk · contribs) This user was added by Night of the Big Wind Absconded Northerner (talk · contribs)This user was added by Night of the Big Wind Boneyard90 (talk · contribs) This user was added by Night of the Big Wind DTXBrian (talk · contribs) This user was added by Night of the Big Wind Articles concerned in this dispute English: Yoghurt Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt#Move_page_to_Yogurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt/Archive_5#Recent_move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoghurt/Archive_4#Mediation (Which didn't happen, because the biggest proponent of 'Keep' did not agree. Not much incentive to get involved if you support the status quo.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_3#Naming_poll (A get out the vote effort was initiated by DanielFolsom to recruit editors sympathetic to 'Keep'. You can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom. Focus in particular on the period around 2007-05-16T02:01:25.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_2#Requested_move_revisited (The move was reopened, and a new Admin decided to Keep.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_2#Requested_move (A consensus was deemed reached, the move happened. (Admin:Mets501)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogurt/Archive_1#Requested_move 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 article "Yoghurt" needs to be moved back to "Yogurt". It is clear from the numerous discussions in every archived talk page (including discussion in sections I did not reference), the numerous moves and "vandalism" back to Yogurt of the article over the years, that the article has not been stable at it's current title. My reasoning for supporting the move is as follows: The article was originally titled "Yogurt" and was edited primarily in the "Yogurt" form until this edit in 2003. This is the original WP:ENGVAR violation. As per WP:ENGVAR and in light of the instability of the article, it should be moved back to its original spelling. The word "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the current editions of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (m-w.com), Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com), the Cambridge University Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org), and the Collins English Dictionary (collinslanguage.com). These compose the entirety of the major dictionaries of the English language, and all prefer "Yogurt". The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com) and MSN Encarta (encarta.msn.com). These are essentially the only other major English language encyclopedias besides Wikipedia, and both of them use "Yogurt". Prescriptive sources also agree to use "Yogurt", the word "Yogurt" is specified in the current Oxford Style Manual (2003) which explains to use Yogurt and to not use -hurt or -ourt, on page 1000. This is in concert with the latest New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005), again, listing "yogurt", on page 424. Groupe Danone, the largest manufacturer of Yogurt in the World, spells the food "Yogurt". Canadian label, British label. The world's second largest manufacturer of yogurt, Yoplait, also spells it "Yogurt". The world's third largest manufacturer of yogurt, and largest organic yogurt manufacturer in the world, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt". The largest dairy trade organizations in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Australia all use "Yogurt". British Etymologist and writer Michael Quinion believes "Yogurt" is the "correct spelling", believing it will succeed as it is "more crisp and short, the word is spelt as it sounds." He explains some background on his blog entry. Its frozen, soy, and strained variant (Greek Yogurt) also use the "Yogurt" spelling, right here at Wikipedia. GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is not only more frequently used, but is trending usage among a variety of locales. This supports the argument that this is certainly not a British vs. American -or- American and British vs. World issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination. While in some localities the h variant is as commonly used as the no-h variant, in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant. Overall, in locales that do use "h", its support is declining over time. As per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be moved to "Yogurt". 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. -Kai445 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. Pushing for a change that has no consensus. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. Agreed with "Night of the Big Wind" and I am not a native speaker, just a food scientist.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. The discussion that just closed demonstrated that there is no consensus for moving the article, which has been at the current spelling since 2003. This recent discussion was a useful airing of views but clearly demonstrates that there is no consensus. No mediation necessary. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. I am no longer involved in this issue. I just don't care enough. There are lots of other things I'd rather spend my time on. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. This is nothing more than being sour because there was no consensus for change. I see no issues to be mediated here; someone proposed (again) moving the page. There was no consensus in favour of the move, and thus the move did not happen. I believe the correct response is "tough cookies." This is how Wikipedia works; you don't get to start claiming that there is an 'issue' needing mediation when the simple fact is the only 'issue' here is people being upset at not getting their pet change made. → ROUX ₪ 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Sure, whatever. It's reasonable to try to "appeal" an RM—I would have thought an RfC or something would be more appropriate, but I suppose this is ok. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. I cast a vote and made a comment in the earlier discussion, but that's as much as I think the issue needs. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Reject unless the purpose here is to revert a close that was clearly in error. I don't see why this is proposed for dispute resolution. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Reject. I can't believe this is serious. I cast a !vote in a move discussion. Roux's view matches mine precisely. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Agree - if this is a proper venue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:50, 1 November 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. If site policy with regards to this dispute is as clear as the filing party implies, then a request for comment should be sufficient: that is the ordinary forum for settling disputes over the interpretation of policy, and in any case is usually a precondition of formal mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Admins assuming bad faith

Admins assuming bad faith Request for formal mediation Article Admins assuming bad faith (talk)  Submitted 11 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Haarscharf (talk · contribs), filing party Antandrus (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute After the fact commentary Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nachteilig&oldid=458291060 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antandrus&oldid=458290848 Issues to be mediated Antandrus has gone too far in failing to assume good faith on the part of the article. I made an effort to make genuine commentary on his actions as a wikipedia admin and its long-term effects on the project itself--I pointed out that by forcefully banning and having a bad attitude toward new editors and telling them to "stop wasting our time", he's damaging the project, and that this kind of attitude will discourage future editors from sticking around. Without a doubt my commentary may have taken a sort of snarky attitude, but it's clear that putting forward sass is not a legitimate reason to ban someone indefinitely, particularly when that user has a history of useful contributions. Primary issues Antandrus (talk · contribs) jumping the gun with bans Antandrus (talk · contribs) having an extremely bad attitude toward normal editors. 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. Haarscharf (talk) 16:33, 11 November 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. Haarscharf, this complaint is completely unsuited to mediation, and I suspect you have not bothered to read (or have disregarded) the guide and other pages you are asked to review before submitting a request for mediation. Please take your grievances to an appropriate forum. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 17:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning TimeClock Plus

TimeClock Plus Request for formal mediation Article TimeClock Plus (talk)  Submitted 16 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Dmarkwilliams (talk · contribs), filing party Smalljim (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute TimeClock_Plus (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:Smalljim#TimeClock_Plus 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 His article (posted to Wiki on 11/16) is not the original work and I was given to understand on 11/15 that my article was in queue to be reviewed and improved upon. Instead of suggesting what I could do to improve on the article, he created an article of the same name, and slapped information in that he copied from my earlier work (the Data Management Inc. wiki). Background: Among several topics that interest me, my knowledge of a company and their product are to be my first contributions to Wikipedia. I wrote a Data Management Inc. wiki with the goal of describing a notable software company. My initial attempt met with resistance because I was lacking information that showed it was a notable company. So I spent several weeks gathering more information from secondary sources and re-wrote the article, in order to conform to Wikipedia standards, but more importantly, to present the best quality I could. Data Management Inc. agreed with my suggestion to put them on Wikipedia, but I explained to them that the piece would not present them as a superior system, but strictly describe who they are, what they offer, and their history. Anything that I initially wrote, which sounded promotional to me, I cut. I do not under any circumstances want this article to be a promotional tool. I was inspired by Microsoft and Google's wiki as well as the Adobe software wikis (specifically the Create Suite wiki). After re-writing the DMI wiki, it was accepted. I eventually wrote a TimeClock Plus wiki to describe the system for anyone that wanted to learn more about it. Initially it failed because I leaned mostly on primary knowledge which was an oversight on my part. When editors explained this, I understood, and immediately went to work, re-writing the article to be based solely on secondary sources. I submitted my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TimeClock_Plus) on 11/15 for review (see View History). Smalljim created a TimeClock Plus article on 11/16. So my primary issue is as the original creator. The work put into providing a complete and factual research article on Data Management Inc. and the TimeClock Plus system took months, involving old and new newspaper articles (some of which were archived and came at a cost), interviews personally conducted, and full cooperation of Data Management Inc. (with their license to use the TimeClock Plus logo). I asked Smalljim if he could remove his article since he created it after and since it was using content taken directly from my article (copied from Data Management Inc.'s wiki), but he said it might be best to just expand on his article. His article, however, is not the original work. This is really my contribution and I don't mean to sound like I have a big head. I was passionate about this, put a lot into it, and I'm proud of it. These articles were my first public work as a writer and I'd like to be the author since I was technically in the middle of a review process when he posted to Wikipedia - not expand on an article under his name that was created after mine. His TimeClock Plus article, as of the current date and time, was copied from the Data Management Inc. wiki (with a few little changes). I also noticed the sidebar he's using was taken directly from my original (failed) TimeClock Plus wiki. The sidebar code is not mine, but I mention it to make the point that he took everything from my work and called it his own. I worked really hard on this so this has been a little frustrating for me. Also, the logo he's using was not licensed for him to use, but Data Management Inc. licensed it to me. Edit: I understand that he intended to re-word this, but I had submitted an article on TimeClock Plus, it was being reviewed and improved upon, as of 11/15, and his article was created after (instead of contacting me and suggesting ways to improve the original). Smalljim said my article read like a PR piece. All of the information was based on secondary sources and strictly describe the purpose, use of this system, and features. If something in the article specifically strikes him as promotional then he needs to tell me and let me improve on the already submitted article instead of creating another under the same name, and plugging in my content word for word from another article. I will defer to Wikipedia's judgement because I'm sure you've had similar situations. I am hopeful that the outcome can produce the following: his article is removed and replaced by the original, pre-existing TimeClock Plus article, to 1) honor the time I spent on this (allowing me to be the author of work that I spent months building, 2) the licensing which he does not have, 3) to eliminate the copyright violation, and 4) to honor the fact that my article had already been in queue for review and improvement. Thank you for your time, Wikipedia. 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. Dmarkwilliams (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC) No. I am withdrawing this mediation request. Further discussion with Smalljim allowed us to resolve this. There was miscommunication as he thought I wanted my content to remain unchanged, but we discussed it and he was kind enough to transfer title of this article to me for my investment. He also suggested some good changes for the article to be more wiki-like. He and I will continue to work together on the TimeClock Plus article and I plan to periodically get his feedback on future articles.Dmarkwilliams (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC) No. As Dmarkwilliams' comments show, this is a matter of education, not dispute – see our discussion. Whoever advised him to start this process so soon (penultimate sentence here) needs to read up on our dispute resolution processes.  —SMALLJIM  12:32, 18 November 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. The problem here is not that the parties cannot agree about some aspect of article content, but that one has not acquired the approach needed for collaborative writing. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 17:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Trial of Conrad Murray

Trial of Conrad Murray Request for formal mediation Article Trial of Conrad Murray (talk)  Submitted 14 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute thehistorian10 (talk · contribs), filing party Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Trial of Conrad Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted None 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 whether it is right to have the lists of participants in a small infobox of the article, bearing in mind that there is a long list of participants to be included. Issue 2 whether the verdict is necessary in an article where there already are many sources referring to the verdict. 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. Thehistorian10 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 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 remark: I await the response of the other listed party, and I do doubt whether this dispute is advanced enough to warrant formal mediation as opposed to direct discussion. However, if you both feel as though mediation is needed, our workload is light at the moment so we might be able to help. AGK [•] 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Reject, not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Blue Army (Poland)

Blue Army (Poland) 2 Request for formal mediation Article Blue Army (Poland) (talk)  Submitted 20 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Xiiiiix (talk · contribs) Faustian (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Blue Army (Poland) Issues to be mediated Faustian has committed a number of serious edit violations that include: Edit Warring, Non-neutrality, and Bullying. The central issue is about an edit conflict regarding the content of a section related to ALLEGED war atrocities committed by the Blue Army at the end of WWI. When I tried to resolve the issue by going to the Discussion page, and explain the reasoning behind the edits Faustian simply reverted to the old version, and when another user Volunteer Marek also noted on the Discussion page that Faustian's edits were very bias and broke several neutrality rules, he simply disregarded the recommendations and posted his edits anyway. Later on in the day I tried to revert the changes, but Faustian along with another user Malik Shabazz had my IP address 76.118.227.161 restricted. Yet, wiki rules state: Boldly editing is not vandalism. And, again... when I tried to use my second IP address 173.162.211.76 to continue the discussion Faustian promptly had that restricted too. The restriction was so total that for a time I was not even able to contact the administrator and explain myself, or voice my dissent on the Discussion page! Not only that, the Blue Army (Poland) page was then locked! These violations are very serious, Faustian has engaged in blatant Bullying and in restricting access to Wikipedia, which is open to both anonymous and registered users alike. During this time he went on an bias rant, and edited the page in the most dishonest and hysterical way, which was discredited by other users such as Volunteer Marek. Also, due to the constant restrictions on my access I was not able to pursue other forms of mediation, and when given the chance I chose this rout, since if I tried to discuss the topic again I would have gotten restricted by Faustian the moment I start to write. Not only that, I was made aware that similar claims against Faustian were made by yet another user Hallersarmy on January 13th, 2011 in which Faustian again engaged in edit warring, and restricting user access. At that point I had no one to state my case to. I was locked out unable to communicate with administrators, unable to voice my objections in the Discussion page. I WAS CENSORED!!! ...AND I'M STILL UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EDITING OF THE PAGE!!! 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 Faustian is engaging in wiki terrorism by arbitrary restricting use, when no act of vandalism was committed. He along with another user Malik Shabazz bully fellow editors into giving-up by simply calling everyone a vandal, and threatening to block access. Please note the direct quote form Malik Shabazz on the History page: "Nope, we discuss first, then (maybe!) we delete sourced material." This is against Wiki rules... I have a right to edit, and I explained my reasons on the Discussion page! My recommendation for the edit was simple: combine two redundant sections Haller's Army and Jews and Jews in Haller's Army into one section Allegations of atrocities which noted the ALLEGED atrocities against the both Jews, and Ukrainians. Also, some incendiary language was removed due to the fact that there are serious doubts as to the actual location of the Blue Army at the time. So, to engage in blatant demonization of the subject when there is serious doubt as to their whereabouts, and period documents (cited on the page) note that the military unit was in a totally different location is simply unfair! But, Faustian simply reverted to the old edits, and once he restricted my use he arbitrary added more bias and inflammatory text, despite dissent form other users. 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. Xiiiiix (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Disagree. This is just beyond silly. The article's edit history shows that this guy was just removing info referenced to reliable sources, and doing nothing else (see the article's discussion page here, last section). Me and three other editors have restored the info. For someone who just appeared, he sure knows how to go to mediation and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.Faustian (talk) 06:19, 21 November 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. Bad faith request; filing party indefinitely blocked. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Lion's Share

Lion's Share Request for formal mediation Article Lion's Share (talk)  Submitted 21 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Mzilikazi1939 (talk · contribs), filing party Dream Focus (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Lion's Share (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. Discussion Page, where a second opinion has already been requested by Dream Focus 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 Continued deletion of an alternative Eastern version of the the set of 'Aesop' fables related to the Lion's Share theme. Issue 2 Non-specialist POV 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. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:19, 21 November 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. Substantial attempts at prior dispute resolution are a precondition of formal mediation, per our Policy. Please pursue earlier steps of the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. As a first step, the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) should be used. If these earlier stages are exhausted without resolution of the dispute, another request for formal mediation can then be submitted. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Yugoslav Partisans

Yugoslav Partisans Request for formal mediation Article Yugoslav Partisans (talk)  Submitted 20 Dec 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Example (talk · contribs), filing party Example2 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Example (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 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. LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 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. No parties have been named and the other required information was not provided, so we do not know if this disputes satisfies the Preconditions of formal mediation. Moreover, the filing party has been indefinitely blocked and topic-banned from this topic area in an arbitration enforcement request, so this dispute presumably turns on conduct, not content, issues - and so we could not be of help here. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Hispaniola

Hispaniola Request for formal mediation Article Hispaniola (talk)  Submitted 29 Nov 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute El Mayimbe (talk · contribs), filing party Marcopolololo (talk · contribs), filing party Funnyhat (talk · contribs), filing party Student7 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Hispaniola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispaniola#Controversy Issues to be mediated "Primary issues:Wrong name asing to an article." The name in the article of the Island was unofficially given to it without consent of both governments/nations that inhabit the Island? The island was named by the United States Geographic Board. Therefore, it is recognized by one (The united States)single country, and a handful of English Speaking countries. Whereas, the Name Island of Santo Domingo, is used wolrdwide, as well as its french translatino Saint Domingue.Additional issues: One User, Student7, keeps refusing to change the name, even though there have been countless attempts by a number of users. studnet7 refuses to agree to compromise between two different parties. atempts Wrong name asing to an article refuses to agree to compromise The use of teh name Hispaniola, represent an American-centric/biased worldview, fuled by the believe that The U.S.A. has the right change official names to independent countries withouth their content. Additional issues (added by other parties) WP:RM WP:RS WP:BURDEN WP:COMMONNAME WP:ENGLISH WP:NOTDEMOCRACY WP:NPOV 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. Marcopolololo (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Agree. El Mayimbe (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Agree. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 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: We are waiting for two parties to give their consent to mediation, but my preliminary inclination is to accept this request: given the unusual nature of the dispute, I think we could help here. AGK [•] 14:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Hold. The only party to not respond to the case is Funnyhat, who has not edited much since the request was filed. We will hold this request for a few more days, to see if he responds to my recent ping on his talk page. AGK [•] 10:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Reject. Not all parties have responded to the proposal for formal mediation. If Funnyhat changes his mind and wants to participate, you can submit another request. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Occidental Petroleum

Occidental Petroleum Request for formal mediation Article Occidental Petroleum (talk)  Submitted 23 Dec 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Antandrus (talk · contribs) John (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) CBuiltother (talk · contribs) Cowboy128 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Occidental Petroleum Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's Law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors. Editors who cry "BLP!" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply.Cowboy128 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 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 My contributions are routinely deleted without a specific rationale. Citing Wiki policies without specifically citing the offending words makes it impossible for me to rewrite or consider rewriting the material. Issue 2 I think that there is reflexive tendency to delete a huge amount of material without proper review and discussion. 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. Cowboy128 (talk) 07:27, 23 December 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. Question for filing party: What prior dispute resolution has been attempted in connection with this case, if any? Please respond promptly or your request for mediation may be declined. Thank you, AGK [•] 01:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Reject Mediation requires parties respond to the request to mediate, as all parties were notified but none have responded and this case was left open for more than double the required time for response this request is rejected. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Liam Neeson

Liam Neeson Request for formal mediation Article Liam Neeson (talk)  Submitted 17 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Bunnyman78 (talk · contribs), filing party O Fenian (talk · contribs) Eckerslike (talk · contribs) JackofOz (talk · contribs) Mooretwin (talk · contribs) OJSlaughter (talk · contribs) Sue De Nimes (talk · contribs) GoodDay (talk · contribs) One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Pointillist (talk · contribs) Τασουλα (talk · contribs) Hot Stop (talk · contribs) Yworo (talk · contribs) Mo ainm (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Example (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 The use of "Irish" and the omission of "British" is a point of contention, there seems to be forced consistent (over a very long period) bias with nationalist/racial agendas as can be seen in the chat based on Northern Ireland being part of the UK or Eire or both. 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. Bunnyman78 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree. I can't see evidence of Precondition 3 "Some attempt at utilising the other components of the content-dispute resolution process must have been made, for instance an unsuccessful informal mediation case or a requests for comment that failed to resolve the dispute". - Pointillist (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I made two made comments on the talk page six weeks ago. I have no interest in this moving forward. Hot StopUTC 03:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Agree. Mooretwin (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Bunnyman78 thinks Liam Neeson was born in Great Britain (he wasn't), and thinks everyone born in Northern Ireland (they aren't, see the Good Friday Agreement). The only "nationalist/racial agendas" I've seen are from people that refuse to accept that people from Northern Ireland are Irish if they so choose. 2 lines of K303 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree, any mediation that starts with the premise that editors are pushing "nationalist/racial agendas" is doomed to failure also as mentioned by ONiH it is also coming from an incorrect premise that Liam Neeson was born in Great Britain. Mo ainm~Talk 12:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Comment. Not sure. I only ever raised the debate about citizenship but this was only in regards to the info-box, aka what passports he carries. As a dual citizen of two countries myself it was of some interest to me. *Shrugs*. And K2 is right - he wasn't born in "Great Britain" but Britain meaning=/=UK. Far as I can see Neeson only identifies as Irish. Whether he holds British Citizenship to me is another matter. But I'm not sure about mediation. --Nutthida (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Stale issue. My last edit to the article was Nov 27 and it's not even on my watchlist anymore. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Northern Ireland as Great Britain in the talk pages was one single comment which has already been explained as a mistype/mistake. The overall problem is much greater than that one mistype and predates it. The premise of this mediation request being that as born in Northern Ireland does by law mean British, unless an Irish passport negates that. This is also in the Good Friday Agreement. The issue is not that Ireland or Irish should be mentioned but that the continued deletion of the ADDITIONAL use of British is not acceptable and contrary to fact. An informal attempt at resolution has already been made since the very problem is that the 'Irish faction' block and revert any statement of 'British' or even the additional "Northern Ireland, United Kingdom" -which altogether DOES smack of nationalist agenda.Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Comment Readers should note that Bunnyman78's recent edits only consist of editing and disputing nationalities of bios in Northern Ireland, even the ones who proclaimed what they self-identify as, it is obvious he is trying to impose his POV, which he failed with on Liam Neeson and is now in a temper because he did not get his way on the article. Here is an example of his pointy edits. [1] Quoted that as an 'Irish actor' there is absolutely no reason why one should not be also stated as a British actor. He is unaware or ignoring the unique complexities and sensitivities of identity in Northern Ireland. [2] Adding United Kingdom in when it is trivial knowledge that Northern Ireland is in the UK, pointy. [3] Same as above. [4] Same again and adds that Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain which is incorrect. [5] Same as above and unneccessarily inserts United Kingdom in another area. Also edited under this IP:83.248.32.132, see evidence here [6] The IP then made this pointy edit [7], removing Irish and just inserting British without consensus. And does it again here, [8]. Close this please, it is a joke and a waste of time. Hasta Illustrata (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) In the interests of neutrality, Why not just simply put Northern Irish? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2012 (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. Several involved editors have rejected the request to mediate. All parties must agree to mediate in order for the case to be considered. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Tamil People

Tamil People Request for formal mediation Article Tamil People (talk)  Submitted 15 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Demonblader (talk · contribs) Kanatonian (talk · contribs) Sodabottle (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Tamil people (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: That Sanskrit is mentioned in Tolkaipayannam and hence dates around the same time or predates Sangam literature 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. Demonblader (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)demonblader Disagree --Sodabottle (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2012 (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. An involved editor has rejected the request to mediate. All parties must agree to mediate in order for the case to be considered. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Slide-rule

Slide-rule Request for formal mediation Article Slide-rule (talk)  Submitted 30 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Hugh Aguilar (talk · contribs), filing party Dr.K (talk · contribs) WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) Yworo (talk · contribs) Added by Glrx (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Articles concerned in this dispute Slide-rule (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. WP:ELN --- I was told to go here by Dr.K, which I did. All of that discussion has disappeared however. There is no record of it having ever been there now. I don't know who deleted it, or how they did this without leaving any trail. Note: WP:ELN slide rule discussion is archived here. Glrx (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 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 About two years ago, I added a section to the slide-rule article on building slide-rules, in which I described my software for generating CNC gcode for slide-rule images. Wtshymanski deleted this. I discussed this with him and he said that he would provide a link to my webpage in the external links section, which he did. I agreed with this compromise. That link was there for many months. I upgraded the link at one time to mention that my software also generates PostScript files for photo-lithography. The link remained for a long time. Recently I noticed that the link had been deleted. I don't know who deleted it, when it was deleted, or why I hadn't been informed automatically (I had checked the "Watch this page" button). I put the link back in. Dr.K then reverted this. I discussed this with him on my talk page, and he told me to take the issue to the external-links page, which I did. Over there, I discussed the issue with WhatamIdoing, who says that nobody will ever have enough interest in slide-rules to build the things, and that he himself has never had enough interest in slide-rules to read the entire article. He says that my "passion for slide-rules" had "misled" me to waste my time writing software for generating slide-rule images. That may be true, but being a boring person is not a violation of any Wikipedia rule. At this time, Dr.K said: "go ahead and include it." So I included the link. Dr.K reverted this again, and he stated on my talk page that I would be blocked from Wikipedia for violating the 3-reversion rule if I ever included that link again --- this is despite the fact that he himself had told me to include it. I would like the link to be included. My program is the only non-proprietary software in the world (afaik) that generates CNC gcode and PostScript images of slide-rules, for use in manufacturing anodized-aluminum slide-rules. Obviously, anybody who is interested in slide-rules, is going to be interested in building them. The purpose of the external links section is to provide links to related webpages, which mine clearly is. The arguments against this, so far, have been: Wtshymanski --- Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your webpage. Dr.K --- Building slide-rules is "arts and crafts" and is too trivial to be of interest to any adult. WhatamIdoing --- Building slide-rules is only of interest to machinists with access to a machine-shop capable of building aluminum parts and 99% of the Wikipedia readers don't fit this exclusive category. Obvious rebuttals are as follows: Every link in every external-links section in every Wikipedia article, promotes somebody's webpage. That is what the external-links section is for. Machining aluminum is a lot more difficult than "arts and crafts." My software could be used as the basis for professionally made slide-rules of higher quality than the commercially-made slide-rules of the 1970s. They would be comparable to the Pickett slide-rules, which were also made of aluminum, but would provide significantly improved aesthetics and readability. Machining aluminum is not so difficult that nobody can do it. Every city has myriad machine-shops that are capable of making slide-rules. This isn't just of interest to the machinists themselves, but to anybody who may want to hire a machine-shop to manufacture the slide-rules for him to be sold commercially. Users of my software can mix-and-match which scales they provide and the layout of those scales. The aluminum slide-rules can be mass-produced, but the photo-lithography done just-in-time --- this allows the customer to obtain a customized slide-rule at a mass-production price --- this is way beyond anything that was possible in the 1970s. Anybody who is interested in slide-rules is going to be interested in my software. Hugh Aguilar (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (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. Hugh Aguilar (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I have never edited the article and do not consider myself to be a party to this dispute. (The previous discussion at the WP:External links/Noticeboard was archived under the normal process for dormant discussions and can be found at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 10#slide_rule.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Decline. Have I edited this article? I think I commented in a thread on the external links noticeboard, but I'm not a regular editor of the article and not interested in participating in this mediation. Yworo (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (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. Several involved editors have rejected the request to mediate. All parties must agree to mediate in order for the case to be considered. Also, filing party should be aware of WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:PROMOTION regarding this topic as it would seem to apply here. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)

Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) Request for formal mediation Article Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) (talk)  Submitted 28 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute ATWA WOLF (talk · contribs) C.Fred (talk · contribs) WikHead (talk · contribs) X ATWA (talk · contribs) Sparthorse (talk · contribs) Calabe1992 (talk · contribs) GliderMaven (talk · contribs) Tgeairn (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated The main issue is the page in question is not 100% accurate. An attempt to edit the page to reflect facts not originally included in the original article was blatantly and ignorantly interfered with by "C.Fred and "WikHead." They showed no regard for the views of others in opposition to the original article's content and instead chose to misuse their power by overriding the necessary edits to the page in question.the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 - The main issue with the article in question is Charles Manson had ALLEGEDLY used the term "Helter Skelter" but this is not mentioned on the page at all. The article is basically 1-sided and makes no mention of Manson denying all the claims made against him. It also doesn't mention the fact Vince Bugliosi in a recent interview refuted his past claims of "Helter Skelter" being Manson's so-called motive for the murders. Issue 2 - The second issue is the way this whole situation has been handled. The edits to reflect Manson's ALLEGED "Helter Skelter" beliefs should have been allowed and anyone who interfered was WRONG to do so! All I see on the article in question is wild sensationalism with biased content which doesn't have a lot of merit. It's all the same old garbage with NOTHING of any REAL substance to back it up! Not only that but I was forced to create an alternate account just so I could initiate this dispute resolution. 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. X ATWA (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC) (blocked sock) Disagree. Inappropriate venue: no other method of dispute resolution was attempted. Further, a number of preconditions are not met: 2) This dispute does substantially relate to a user edit warring on the Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) article, 3) there has not been substantial previous discussion, and 4) no earlier attempts at dispute resolution have taken place. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree - because I flat out deny being involved in a "content dispute", as was clearly explained to the accuser (here and here in response to this and this) prior to them bringing the matter to this venue. My involvement with the article in question includes only a single revert of vandalism (i.e. blanking of the entire lower page, reflist, nav-template, categories, interwiki links, etc.). I have no particular interest or opinion in the subject, the article's content, or "changes made to its written content"... nor did I bother to read the textual-changes made in this edit because the extensive blanking-vandalism (59,163 bytes) was clearly enough in itself to warrant a revert. This revert was based strictly on physical damage and abuse to the article's vital components, and had absolutely nothing to do with any "word content" added or modified by the user I reverted. It's about what they did, and not what they said. I don't involve myself with "content disputes" as I know they are best left handled by those with a knack to properly mediate them... but if I catch someone blanking, damaging, or blatantly abusing the encyclopedia, I'm on their ass in two seconds flat. Good or bad, when it comes to Charles Manson I simply don't care one way or the other... it's just a lot of grey noise. Please leave me out of this so I can get back to doing what I do best.  -- WikHead (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree GliderMaven (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree ATWA WOLF (and his various sockpuppets and block-evading IP accounts) is only at Wikipedia to push a clear and unpleasant point of view that seeks to whitewash the actions of Charles Manson. He disregards Wikipedia policy, pushes spam, violates WP:3RR, violates WP:NPA frequently and viciously, and indulges in patently ridiculous conspiracy theories. For evidence, peruse the contributions of his various accounts, listed at the now closed SPI investigation. The user has never engaged in constructive dialog despite the efforts of C.Fred and WikiHead amongst others and is clearly not interested in following Wikipedia's rules, basic common decency or doing anything except push his point of view. There is nothing to mediate, this RfM is just another time wasting effort by a Manson apologist. The only remaining action is to continue to block ATWA WOLF and associated accounts/IPs. Sparthorse (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree I have no dispute with any well sourced content in this article. My only involvement with this issue was to revert the addition of weasel words and unsourced original research here, and to warn the editor of our policies regarding edit warring here. I also corrected the submission of this request to allow for correct notification of involved parties here. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree I do not see at any point that I have edited this article. Calabe1992 01:30, 30 January 2012 (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. Multiple involved editors have rejected the request to mediate. All parties must agree to mediate in order for the case to be considered. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Global Warming Controversy

Global Warming Controversy Request for formal mediation Article Global warming controversy‎ (talk)  Submitted 28 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Jdey123 (talk · contribs), filing party NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) Dave souza (talk · contribs) Sjones23 (talk · contribs) DVdm (talk · contribs) OsirisV (talk · contribs) Jpgordon (talk · contribs) Rostz (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Global Warming Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Attempted to engage with editors via their talk pages Attempted to engage with editors via the article's talk page Placed a POV tag on the article directing editors to the talk page Asked that the editors not continue to remove entries. 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 Removal of neutral cited entries from Global Warming Controversy article without a legitimate reason. The Wiki policy says that entries should not be removed but should have balancing additions provided, if at all possible. In any case, both entries that I added could not be deemed to favour either side of the controversy. No attempt to engage in debate via talk pages Harassment, provocation followed by blocking. This is the 2nd occurrence of this method NewsAndEventsGuy continued to harrass me by editing my talk page to suggest that I was a guilty party in order to prevent me from being unblocked, and after I'd initially lodged this complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy further struck out one of the disputes that I made on the talk page claiming that the dispute had already been resolved. SJones23 removed my entry from his talk page asking for advice on how to escalate the dispute with the entry "Harrassment". There is clearly no harrassment in a genuine request for advice but is clearly designed to inflame the dispute. Jpgordon failed to unblock me without addressing the issues that I raised in my unblock request. Accusing me of obvious disruptive behaviour. Any disruptive behaviour on my part was an effect of the clear and multiple violations of the Wiki policies that had occurred, and no obvious remedy or escalation process being provided for me to follow. Stephan Schulz removed my entries in the Temperature Predictions and Scientific Concensus sections originally for no good reason Dave Souza has previously removed entries in the Temperature Predictions section, citing the political website Skepticalscience.com as the sole reason for the removal Rostz removed my re-added entries when a POV tag had already been attached to the article. OsirisV and DVdm have aided and abetted the above, by reverting entries on the global warming controversy talk page. The dispute has escalated due to continual violations of Wiki policies by the parties involved with no attempt to resolve the situation by diplomatic discussion. It is clear from the non-neutral content of the pages that relate to global warming and complaints from other users in the history pages, that there is a concerted campaign by supporters of the global warming hypothesis to censor those people who wish to provide balancing evidence against the hypothesis. A number of the parties have a clear political agenda as specified on their own talk pages. Wikipedia's credibility is reliant on it being a neutral, apolitical forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdey123 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 28 January 2012 (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. Agree. Jdey123 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Agree. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Agree. OsirisV (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) No. I don't even think unblock review is subject to mediation, as the blocked party is free (up to a point) to continue requesting unblock. Note that the filing user is now blocked for block evasion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC) No. The request fails mediation preconditions 2, 3, and 4. Also, the form of the request fails items 4 and 5. In the event a proper request is made, then I will likely leap on board with vigor but I reserve the right to make a final decision only after the current nonconforming request is revised or replaced with one that does conform to the procedural guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC) No. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to mediate, as this was just a straightforward case of severe talk page disruption. I reverted two instances of talkpage refactoring and changing other contributors' comments ([9] and [10]), and one blatant instance of talk page soapboxing ([11]). - DVdm (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Decline per NewsAndEventsGuy. Blocked editor should study WP:CONSENSUS (as well as WP:BRD/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and ought have availed himself of WP:DR before edit warring; the mere addition of a POV tag does not allow one to engage in WP:DE. Rostz (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (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'm no longer active with the Mediation Committee, but this request strikes me as totally unsuited to the mediation process. I suspect the complainant has misunderstood the nature of formal mediation. AGK [•] 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Reject. Several involved editors have rejected the request to mediate. All parties must agree to mediate in order for the case to be considered. Also pretty clear mediation is not the proper place for this dispute with ongoing dispute resolution and sanctions taking place. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique

Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique Request for formal mediation Article Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique (talk)  Submitted 30 Jan 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute certifiedallergist (talk · contribs) SParish (talk · contribs) Famousdog (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique I'm confused. Why are two non-existent articles listed here? Famousdog (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted To the best of my knowledge, other avenues of dispute resolution have not been tried before this mediation request. DR has not been followed in a proper manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 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 Previous versions of the edits for this page have had an incredibly large amount of bias towards these articles and do not allow the data from the studies to even be presented. I feel it is of vital importance for the future research in medicine, especially with autism, to be given some details regarding this study. However, Famousdog keeps changing my edits to delete any detail for the study and only make a negative and biased remark and interpretation of the study. It should not be a biased interpretation but simply stating the facts that needs to occur here.Certifiedallergist (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Also there is a French article that is listed in medline and pubmed.gov by Savornin S which has stated that NAET may be useful when treating allergies. That is the simple conclusion of the article but this reference keeps getting taken off from the article unfairly. Instead, unofficial and non-medline sources such as Stephen Barrett keeps getting cited. It is ludicrous and outrageously non-scientific and biased!Certifiedallergist (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) We've got a serious problem with several newbie WP:SPAs flooding the article and making edits that aren't up to par with our policies. They also edit war without any respect for WP:BRD or WP:MEDRS. These editors include people from Nambudripad's institute, so they have severe COIs. The socking needs to stop and the article needs to be stabilized, possibly by protection. An SPI should probably be started, but I don't have the time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The sock puppet investigation has just been closed, and one of Certifiedallergist's socks has been blocked. (Look in this drawer and this drawer for dirty socks.) I don't know why Certifiedallergist (CA) hasn't also been blocked, since they used very deliberate deception (referring to their socks in third person) to give the impression of several editors making comments and edits. This SPI has taken attention away from the article to some degree, but CA has continued to demand the inclusion of one extremely poor piece of "research" performed by a Nambudripad team, IOW COI, primary source, junk science that violates MEDRS in every conceivable way. No matter how many times we've explained MEDRS, CA still comes back and presses for inclusion. Well, until MEDRS is changed, it's not going to happen! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (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. Certifiedallergist (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Agree. Famousdog (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Agree.SParish (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2012 (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. Clarification - the articles you have cited do not seem to exist and I checked their deletion history, they weren't deleted. Are you certain the links are right for the articles in question? --WGFinley (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I think the case filer meant to link to Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique. Looking at his previous edits, that appears to be the site of the dispute. Lord Roem (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I apologize for that mistake. Yes the link in dispute is Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique. There are two forms of edits that have been done on that and if you look at the history I am in conflict with Famousdog over that article. Certifiedallergist (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Question - you left other attempts at dispute resolution as blank. Has there been anything done to resolve the dispute other than discussion on the talk page? WP:RSN or WP:RFC perhaps? Please respond in your own sections and not this one, this is for committee member use only. For the committee, WGFinley (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC). Reject. This case involves allegations of socking and the conduct of one user in particular. This case is not appropriate for mediation as it appears this would qualify for further dispute resolution pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision of discretionary sanctions pursuant to their pseudoscience decision. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning User talk:Liamfoley

User talk:Liamfoley Request for formal mediation Pages User talk:Liamfoley (talk)  Submitted 03 Mar 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Liamfoley (talk · contribs), filing party Binksternet (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute User talk:Liamfoley:Conflict of interest regarding abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liamfoley#Conflict_of_interest_regarding_abortion 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 I've been accused of being an activist which I deny. The other party has no evidence that I am an office holder, draw a salary or is even a member of any organization. Issue 2 The other editor has attempted to "out" me, mentioning non Wikipedia sites. I regard this as sinister and intimidatory. This puts me at risk of online bullying. I understand that this kind of behaviour is par for the course in many online discussion boards but it's clearly not what I expected from Wikipedia. Additional issues (added by other parties) Liamfoley appears to have a conflict of interest as defined by WP:COI: "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Outside of Wikipedia, a person named Liam Foley has been engaged in the promotion of an anti-abortion activist organization called Pro Life Campaign Ireland. On Wikipedia, Liamfoley was blocked for edit warring after repeatedly adding an unverified promotional poll hosted by Pro Life Campaign Ireland. This appears to me to be the same person. I am not interested in outing any editor. I certainly did not post links to the behavior I noticed outside of Wikipedia, nor did I reveal the address or contact information of the real world Liam Foley. I simply wish to protect the wiki from activism, from editors such as Liamfoley who violate the spirit of WP:COI#Campaigning by promoting a cause rather than neutrally stating the facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2012 (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. Liamfoley (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (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 a content issue. For the Mediation Committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning 1st Independent Spirit Awards

1st Independent Spirit Awards Request for formal mediation Article 1st Independent Spirit Awards (talk)  Submitted 26 Feb 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Bill shannon (talk · contribs) DreamFieldArts (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute 1st Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 2nd Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 3rd Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 4th Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 5th Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 6th Independent Spirit Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and others available upon request. Feel free to go to Special:Contributions/Bill shannon to see the full list. Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted User talk:Bill shannon#Independent Spirit Awards Issues to be mediated Primary issues The listings for the individual articles for the Independent Spirit Awards need to be cleaned up. As of this afternoon, we had listings ranging from 1986 - 2011. As you will notice via history, there is an inconsistency in the listings. For example, the listing for the 2011 awards list the films of 2011 (the ceremony was held in 2012, today in fact). But the first listing we had 1986 -- was for the 1986 ceremony, for the films of 1985. The template used does not have the correct years, not consistently. There were a few articles that the template points to that have not been completed, but when they were, there would be a severe issue. My goal was to create uniformity among all the entries for the award ceremonies. (Eventually I was going to go in and complete the missing entries as well.) I tried to do this by -- instead of listing a year -- I ordered the ceremonies as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. so that there would be no confusion. I also created disambiguation pages that pointed to multiple options of someone was searching by year (see 2nd Independent Spirit Awards for an example). These disambiguation pages are not unprecedented: see 2010 Academy Awards. (The other user, DreamFieldArts, stated that since the Independent Spirit Awards were "nowhere near as big as the Oscars" (paraphrasing) that they weren't needed, something I find to be an incredibly arbitrary opinion. Just because it's not "as big," does that mean it shouldn't be accurate? I was "ordered" (under penalty of banishment) to stop adding pages. I have been a Wikipedian since 2005, and have added countless pages. I have started pages that have grown well beyond what I started them as. I don't see how someone can simply threaten to ban me because HE (or SHE, I don't know) doesn't like what I'm doing. Rather than having a discussion, this user's first move was to a) "order" me to stop, and b) threaten to ban me. No discussion, no reaching for consensus. I am a Wikipedian too, and just because this person ranks higher on the totem pole than I do, it doesn't mean that HE/SHE gets to start banning people wantonly because of his/her own (flimsy, I might add) arguments. 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. Bill shannon (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Disagree. DreamFieldArts 6:24, 26 February 2012 (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 - not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Digital Extremes

Digital Extremes Request for formal mediation Article Digital Extremes (talk)  Submitted 09 Feb 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute GyronWells (talk · contribs), filing party Rebulast (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Digital_Extremes#Employment_Environment_.26_Awards (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 GyronWells, an admitted ex-employee, has posted a PDF of a ruling from the Ontario Minisitry of Labour to the page. This source is Original Research, not public, and hosted on his personal blog. This PDF contained sensitive information of other employees. The user expresses ad hominem phrases in the Digital Extremes talk page, revealing the personal nature of the edit. GyronWells has a posse of editors adding libelous content to the company page, and it is a conflict of interest and personally charged toward the company. 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. Rebulast (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2012 (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. Comment I will allow this some time for response or further revision/comment but on its face this appears to be a conduct issue and not appropriate for mediation, see Rejected requests common reasons #5. --WGFinley (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Decline as stale, user conduct. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Vic Toews

Vic Toews Request for formal mediation Article Vic Toews (talk)  Submitted 21 Feb 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Example (talk · contribs), filing party Example2 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Vic Toews (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 Country of birth deleted and no evidence of who changed it 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. Sailsmart (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2012 (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. Fixed some formatting and layout issues. AGK [•] 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Decline not all parties have accepted mediation within reasonable deadline. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning August Burns Red

August Burns Red Request for formal mediation Article August Burns Red (talk)  Submitted 04 Mar 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute asimpleart (talk · contribs), filing party Gunmetal (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Template:August_Burns_Red. associated acts Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gunmetal_Angel/Archive_7#Bells_Associated_act 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 Bells is an associated act of August Burns Red. Jon Hershey was an original member who started with the other members started the band and has since branched off, creating his own Associated act. I use wikipedia's own example to defend my contribution ( which you can see in this screenshot http://i.imgur.com/QDg6w.png ). Gunmetal impulsively removes my edit and demises my explanation as inefficient, yet ignores that I'm following the example of 1000's of other articles. He even goes so far as to call it vandalism and has threatened to report to administrators. Wikipedia is great because it is a resource to find and update articles to be more and more accurate. It's why I use it everyday. Gunmetals careless edits on my contributions is not only a disservice to me, but to wikipedia as a whole. Additional issues (added by other parties) I am not being a "disservice" at all. This user (Asimpleart) right here is simply choosing NOT to abide to the guideline here » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts that clearly states that associated acts should not included if only one member is in common with both bands. The user continues not to follow this guideline and disregards it with "other articles having it like this" as his only excuse, which shouldn't matter. A million people could make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. And with him choosing not to follow the rules, I've suggested to start telling administrators on him since there's nothing else I could do. • GunMetal Angel 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Gunmetal, Bells has multiple members from ABR, both existing and past, which are involved. See video interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-90ye8kwWH4&t=1m13s . "I'm playing drums live, and I'm trying to get my foot in the door for the record as well". - Matt Greiner - Drummer, August Burns Red Well, whatever, I never wanted to care this much for it. I was simply going by what a guideline says but if you want to go on for this far, just have it your way. • GunMetal Angel 05:30, 4 March 2012 (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. Asimpleart (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Disagree (see above or see talk page for explanation) • GunMetal Angel 02:59, 4 March 2012 (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, not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory Request for formal mediation Article Critical Race Theory (talk)  Submitted 30 Mar 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute davidwhittle (talk · contribs), filing party TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 71.28.146.251 (talk · contribs) Paul Tvoz (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Critical Race Theory (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. See the Talk Page of Critical Race Theory 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 Outright bias and failure to respect NPOV Issue 2 Bullying and personal attacks Issue 3 False claims of consensus and edit warring Issue 4 Deletion of valid sources and arguments to support their agenda 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. Davidwhittle (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Decline. This complaint is quite dated as far as bringing me into it, seeing as I stopped commenting on the talk page on March 18 and my last edit to the article was on March 16. Further, I believe the "issues to be mediated" listed above are outside of the purview of this mediation forum, and I have no reason to think that mediation would yield any different result from all of the attempts multiple editors made to discuss the content issues with this editor previously. I expect that the sheer volume of commentary that this editor would be likely to generate pursuing this mediation will be prohibitive and I respectfully decline to participate. Tvoz/talk 08:24, 2 April 2012 (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 Mediation requires parties respond to the request to mediate, there has been concern mentioned that not all parties involved in the dispute were invited and one of the involved parties has refused to mediate, thus this request is rejected. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Religion in Africa

Religion in Africa Request for formal mediation Article Religion in Africa (talk)  Submitted 29 Mar 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Otelemuyen (talk · contribs), filing party Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) Middayexpress (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Religion in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Let.27s_Show_restraint Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Reversion_of_Otelemuyen.27s_major_change_to_lead 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 Lead Misleading Terms 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. Otelemuyen 09:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Disagree. This is not even close to ripe for mediation. The very first edits that are being questioned were added to the article only 7 days ago. So far, we've had about 1 day of discussion. Otelemuyen has jumped over every other step in dispute resolution directly to mediation. Furthermore, Otelemuyen is edit warring to keep his changes in, after admitting that they are based on sources that don't meet WP:RS. Otelemuyen, first, stop the edit warring, then let's try one of the earlier steps, like the reliable sources noticeboard, the neutrality noticeboard, an RfC, or, heck, just even talking more on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Disagree. No serious effort has been made to resolve the issue per the WP:BRD process. Matter can quickly be resolved by following one of the more basic steps above. Middayexpress (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2012 (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 Mediation requires parties respond to the request to mediate, several parties have refused to mediate, thus this request is rejected. It appears there is interest in further use of dispute resolution and that is encouraged. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Rejected request for mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand Request for formal mediation Article Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand (talk)  Submitted 09 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Manfi (talk · contribs), filing party Taylornate (talk · contribs) Arcadian (talk · contribs) Y12J (talk · contribs) JonRichfield (talk · contribs) Wafflephile (talk · contribs) Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs) Novangelis (talk · contribs) Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) Watermelon mang (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Common extensor tendon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Abductor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor pollicis brevis muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor carpi radialis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor indicis muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor digitorum muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor digiti minimi muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. 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 Should the listed pages be merged to a single one? Could the new summary article (Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand) coexist with the individual articles without them being redirected? Does Wikipedia policy require other minor anatomy pages to be merged? 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. Manfi (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Not at this time (see talk page). --Taylornate (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Agree, but this is new to me. I may fall out. JonRichfield (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I agree that a mediator would be useful here since it seems to have devolved into a revert-war. My stance has been that this merger happened without due process (use of the merge-to/from templates) or consensus to support that it be done. My personal stance is that individual pages for the muscles are informative and helpful, though I think the new page is good and can coexist with them, just as rectus femoris coexists with quadriceps. Y12J (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Do not intend to participate. I just commented on the talk page in response to a RFC. Nobody Ent 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Agree I have an opinion, but am more concerned with a stable end result so editing can proceed in an orderly fashion without risk of work getting swept away. Novangelis (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Agree, but in limited capacity. Wafflephile (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (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 Mediation requires all parties agree to mediate, one of the involved parties has refused to mediate, thus this request is rejected. Review of the talk page mentioned indicates mediation without one of the editors who has rejected mediation would not be productive. Please review Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy for other alternatives to resolve the matter. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Rejected request for mediation concerning Marek Edelman

Marek Edelman Request for formal mediation Article Marek Edelman (talk)  Submitted 11 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) Nobullgracias (talk · contribs) RolandR (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Marek Edelman (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=section=21 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 After I added an interview with the subject of the article Marek Edelman in which he clarifies his views on Zionism - the clarification was not allowed/deleted Issue 2 The article itself is very politicized - much of the article simply is a collection of op-ed pieces with clear bias used as "fact". I have tried to point this out and as of yet no compromise solution was truly explored or implemented to resolve this. 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. Nobullgracias (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Disagree. There is no ongoing dispute, the originating editor has been blocked twice (once as an IP) for edit-warring on this article, and the matter was under discussion on the article talk page. No useful purpose would be served by formal mediation here, and the request is vexatious and unnecessary. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Disagree. This issue has been resolved. See Talk:Marek Edelman#1985 interview. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:57, 16 April 2012 (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. Clarification the filing template had several errors so it doesn't appear the other editors were notified. Also appears a block is involved since the request was made, this case may not be appropriate for mediation given other dispute resolution is ongoing. Will wait to see if other parties respond. For the Mediation Comittee, WGFinley (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Reject. This case is not appropriate for mediation. Further, all parties must agree to mediate, and two of the three have not done so. Therefore, it is rejected. Please review Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy for other alternatives to resolve the matter. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Money order

money orders Request for formal mediation Article Money order (talk)  Submitted 07 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute volley36 (talk · contribs) QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Money order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted There has been no attempt at dispute resolution. QU TalkQu 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC) QU explaining why volley36's edit is problematic per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR (diff) QU TalkQu 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC) QU explaining why volley36 is misunderstanding WP:RS and WP:OR (second attempt) (diff) QU TalkQu 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC) volley36 hasn't responded really to either of these talk page comments of mine QU TalkQu 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Issues to be mediated 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. The US Postal Service maintains a webpage at https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm claiming money orders it issues are valid in 29 countries. I am a Civil Law Notary living in British Columbia, received 3 US domestic money orders, and they are NOT valid here in spite of the fraud in the webpage advice. The mediator claims that money orders may still be articled as "safer" methods to transfer money. For the United States Postal Service, this cannot be true. I provided this citation to the mediator but he disagrees that the fact the representations made on that page DIFFER from other USPS representations regarding money orders is a source for my edit that money orders from USPS are no longer safe and electronic transfers are safer. Primary issues Is https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm a credible source If https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm is indeed misleading, shouldn't it be noted regarding USPS issued money orders? Was my edit changed for the stated reason of no cite or is the cite above adequate to prove an internal fraud? Did volley36 notify the USPS Inspector General of this fraud and have they taken any action? Comments above were made by volley36. I believe the editor's reference to "the mediator" means me. My talk page comments (linked above) note that the argument that volley36 is laying out in the article, and repeating here, are original research. The editor is comparing two separate sources of information and drawing their own conclusion as opposed to citing a conclusion from a reliable source. This is apparent in the way they are describing the issue here. As I note below my primary concern was attempting to explain to volley36 the meaning of WP:OR as opposed to imposing my own version of the article. Of the four primary issues noted I do not dispute (1); (2) is where volley36 is straying into OR as it is not for editors to judge the accuracy of sources - it cannot both be a reliable source and inaccurate; (3) I reverted the edit purely because it was original research that was not supported by the reference; (4) I do not see the relevance and I think again that this point demonstrates a failure to understand content policies. Broadly if an editor thinks we should compare two separate USPS sources and then note they are different in an article then they don't understand Wikipedia. To be honest I've nothing more to say on this and I'm withdrawing my agreement to the mediation as there is nothing to mediate (i.e., I have no intention of attempting to again explain the issue or change the article). QU TalkQu 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 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. Volley36 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Oh I agree but there's nothing to mediate IMO as I don't believe I am in dispute with the user. QU TalkQu 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Nothing to mediate, you'd be wasting your time! QU TalkQu 15:29, 17 April 2012 (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. Clarification - it's not clear, what other means of dispute resolution have been attempted before this? Is it necessary for mediation or has discussion broken down on the talk page? For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC). As I said, I don't consider myself in dispute with the other party. I've no special interest in the article they are interested in - I just reverted their edit because it was uncited and original research. As they were a new editor I assumed they didn't understand WP policies so I thought it was a good opportunity to try and explain them. I've no intention of "warring" over that bit of content - I've done my best to explain but as they don't appear to be interested in the explanation I've left it as is. I only agreed to the mediation on the off chance that the editor wanted to engage in a discussion on their edits. I'm not interested in arguing for "my version" of the article as I feel no ownership over it at all.QU TalkQu 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. Also, looks like there's been no prior attempt at dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Paul Gogarty

Paul Gogarty Request for formal mediation Article Paul Gogarty (talk)  Submitted 16 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Darepng (talk · contribs), filing party Snappy (talk · contribs) Exiledone (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Paul Gogarty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Have attempted to highlight lack of balance in article but parties have refused to engage in substance of text because they correctly maintain I have a personal interest. Personal interest or not is irrelevant if the substance is factually correct. What is relevant is whether some of the text in question should be included at all, and, if it is, given that this is a piece about a former elected representative, whether it should be balanced by examples of positive, negative and neutral media coverage, assuming such exists. 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 Whether paragraph entitled "Babygate" Controversy in an earlier edit merits inclusion as a highlight of a political career over other inclusions. Issue 2 Whether a), if such a paragraph be included, which is an item that neutral observers would most likely consider to be a negative rather than a positive hightlight, balancing comments made at the time of media coverage should also be included and b) whether other notable events in the TD's career that received a similar amount of media coverage throughout the former elected member's political career should also be mentioned. These items are all listed in the latest revision by this user. While acknowleding a personal interest, they have been written with the onus on neutral coverage. If the parties I am in dispute with have issues with the entries, why do they not edit them rather than omit them entirely? My contention is that they want to create a narrative around the former member's political legacy based on controversy rather than achievements and failures that would be deemed noteworthy of inclusion by neutral third parties with no political agenda, most likely living outside the island of Ireland. 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. Darepng (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (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. Question: Have you brought this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or the Mediation Cabal? Remember, some amount of prior dispute resolution is required before we can accept a case. I suggest you try an RfC; it could secure broader community insight on the matter at hand. Lord Roem (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Reject. No prior attempts at dispute resolution. Little evidence of any talk page discussion as well. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka Request for formal mediation Article Sri Lanka (talk)  Submitted 14 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Distributor108 (talk · contribs), filing party Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Astronomyinertia (talk · contribs) SriSuren (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Sri_Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka/Archive_7#Official_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka/Archive_5#Official_Language 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 status of Tamil as an official language The difference in status between Tamil and Sinhala(de facto) must be presented in the article. An independent source [CIA fact-book] clearly states this, "Sinhala (official and national language) 74%, Tamil (national language) 18%, other 8%". Tamil must be de-listed from the country info box which states it as an official language, where it is merely a national language (which does not hold any legislative power). Distributor108 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (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. Agree. Distributor108 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Agree. --SriSuren (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (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. Question. Have you brought this to a noticeboard or initiated some prior form of dispute resolution? Talk page discussion is a great start, but formal mediation is supposed to be the last step in the process. Lord Roem (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Reject. There has been no prior dispute resolution. Additionally, this may be a bad-faith request as the filing party has been blocked for disruptive editing, relating to his filing of requests in recent days. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Template:Music of Canada

Template:Music of Canada Request for formal mediation Pages Template:Music of Canada (talk)  Submitted 13 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Miesianiacal (talk · contribs), filing party Roux (talk · contribs) Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) UrbanNerd (talk · contribs) Moxy (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Template:Music of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Discussion at the talk page Appeal for outside input Request for comment Mediation Cabal 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 A consensus is required on inclusion or exclusion of the song "God Save the Queen" in the template. What is the status of "God Save the Queen"? Is it the royal anthem of Canada? Is it officially the royal anthem of Canada? Is "official status", "legal status", or neither the benchmark requirement for inclusion of an anthem in the navbox? Additional issues (added by other parties) We cannot determine if the anthem is or is not the royal anthem in Canada. That has already been decided and there are several official Government websites that list it as such and go on to indicate that it has no "legal status" or other "official status". The question is whether that has any bearing on the lives of Canadians or whether the song is simply another one used for special occasions and of no greater status in Canada than other songs used for special occasions whether formally (such as the various wedding or funeral marches performed at the appropriate services) or informally ("Happy Birthday", "Auld Lang Syne"), or whether it should simply be an historical song as "The Maple Leaf Forever" is. It is not common to include the songs for heads of state in the music boxes of those states except where it is also the national anthem. Additional issues 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. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I categorically refuse to participate in this forum-shopping. There is no consensus for inclusion, period, no matter what efforts Miesianiacal intends to go to in order to wear everyone down. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 15 April 2012 (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. Additionally, there may be conduct issues present that would not be appropriate for mediation. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Firefox

Firefox Request for formal mediation Article Firefox (talk)  Submitted 24 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Trewyy (talk · contribs), filing party Robin Mathew Rajan (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Firefox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted User_talk:Trewyy#Robin complaints Talk:Firefox#Firefox 12 screenshot poll 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 Firefox article needs help determining what screenshot for Firefox 12 should be used. File:Firefox12.PNG or File:Firefox12.png. 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. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 23:53, 24 April 2012 (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. Malformed request. Rejected without prejudice to refiling properly. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)  Note: The filing party consulted me in #wikipedia-en-help about this dispute, agreed to withdraw the request, and is going to pursue alternative forms of dispute resolution (like an RFC or complaint to DRN). If the earlier stages of dispute resolution are unsuccessful, we can look again at formal mediation. (Also, I fixed the format of this request; it was a minor problem of linking to the article talk page using {{X}} instead of [[X]], but it had a catastrophic effect.) AGK [•] 15:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Shiatsu

Shiatsu Request for formal mediation Article Shiatsu (talk)  Submitted 28 Apr 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Shiatsushi (talk · contribs), filing party IRWolfie (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Shiatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_April_2012/. 14:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talk page), 15:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) (Shiatsu talkpage)18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talk page) 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 IRWolfie has undone my last edit (and all the previous ones) in which I cite evidence - 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talkpage). He supresses all my edits. Not one of my sources is reliable according to him. Not even adding things from the sources he mentions, is acceptable to him. 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talk page). He also refuses to discuss the issues wih informal mediation and tries to get me blocked. 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 April 2012/. I know he is the self-appointed overseer of which sources are reliable for this article, and even which bits of those sources can be used in this case. 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talk page), however I think he is going a bit far when he uses the page of a currency exchange company for shiatsu on horses (http://www.equineshiatsuassociation.com/) (not even a picture of a horse). He added that page on 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)(Shiatsu talk page). He also places a complete confidence on a source "Ernst & Singh (2008). Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. p. 326." which doesn't cite one single source or reference for its claims. Now, I wonder how this book, without one single source or reference, is more reliable than a study which he considers very small and subjective 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC) (Shiatsu talk page) 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. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Malformed mediation request; I don't know what is even being contended (it's not clear in the above text). I was not even informed of this mediation. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (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. Malformed request and not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Request for formal mediation Article SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (talk)  Submitted 07 May 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Inijones (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs) TransporterMan (talk · contribs) Guy Macon (talk · contribs) Grahamboat (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 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 Attempted to edit article. Got into dispute. Sought help from informal notice board. Editor rejected half of my edit, called the second half "relatively accurate and harmless." All further attempts to make "accurate" edits were blocked. Issue 2 Users are using consensus rule to enforce POV and block all edits they dislike Issue 3 Editors responded to issue by strengthening the controversial character of the lead. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 After characterizing my efforts as "vandalism" the article was locked and the controversial character of the lead was strengthened after all other editors were prevented from changing the article Additional issue 2 I have a narrative summary of the incident on the talk page 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. I agree. I was in an edit dispute and the editors were using the consensus rule to block any edit, even material deemed acceptable through an informal support request. These editors then locked the page due to my "vandalism" and have begun emphasizing the controversial character of the lead when the page is locked and nobody can object. This change to the lead was done without consensus, even though this same rule was invoked to block the portion of my edit which TransporterMan deemed acceptable. This action seems to confirm that the editors are only allowing material that conforms to their POV considerations. TransporterMan has not had any further involvement in the dispute and I added him as a disputant because I wanted to be thorough in my request. Inijones (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Inijones (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Abstain as improperly joined non-party. My only involvement was as a mediator/clerk at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I do not consider myself a party to this dispute and I am not invested in its outcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC) This is a complete mess from a process standpoint (see the other noted thread) and one editor who is trying to war in material which has a range of problems, is ignoring everything said to them. I am not participating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Abstain because I am not a party to this content dispute. Inijones asked for outside opinions on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, I read all the arguments on the talk page and gave my outside opinion (clear consensus), and now he is naming me as a party to the dispute. I am not a party to this dispute, and have zero interest in the content of the page, other than a desire to see that Wikipedia's policies are followed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2012 (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, Lord Roem (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Falkland Islands

Falkland Islands Request for formal mediation Article Falkland Islands (talk)  Submitted 06 May 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Lacarids (talk · contribs), filing party Dave1185 (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Falkland Islands (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 I made a suggestion regarding Falkland_Islands on the Falkland Islands Talk Page. I believe that it was a valid one. There is a dispute between UK and Argentina regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. I suggest that Falkland_Islands could be improved by including the reason(s) that the dispute persists. If the explanation is too lengthy, maybe it should be moved to Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute . I don't understand how/why the article shouldn't include a section regarding the reasons that the dispute persists. Nor do I understand the resistance to such a suggestion. Editors stated "Not a Forum" and "Not News." I don't think either applies to my suggestion. Primary issues Issue 1: Can we improve the Falkland Islands article by including reasons that the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and UK persists? Issue 2: I have been threatened by Dave1185 (talk · contribs) on my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lacarids). He threatens to ban me, and writes "take heed because you need to take a long hard look at yourself again before you speak." Is this an appropriate way to treat an editor? Is Dave1185 (talk · contribs) overstepping his role as a contributor by threatening and falsely characterizing me? Issue 3: On the Talk:Falkland Islands page, Dave1185 (talk · contribs) has ASSUMED that I am of "Latino background/IP," and implied that Latinos should not be allowed to edit articles. First--I am not Latino, nor is my IP. Can IP's be Latino? Is it bad to be a Latino, as he implies? Second (contrary to his claims), I never stated an opinion one way or another. Third, I do not appreciate being called a "F(r)iend" for making a simple suggestion, and requesting that it be discussed on the talk page before being ruled out. This is merely another instance in which Dave1185 (talk · contribs) is harrassing me. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1: I'll state it here, since I know it will come up. I have been accused of being a sock puppet. I am not. Please see my response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grundle2600. I believe that User:The Four Deuces is making this accusation to prevent me from making suggestions. 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. Lacarids (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (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. Additionally, no sufficient and substantive prior DR. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Georgian Orthodox Church

Georgian Orthodox Church Request for formal mediation Article Georgian Orthodox Church (talk)  Submitted 10 May 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs), filing party Aregakn (talk · contribs) GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) Krosenstern (talk · contribs) Meowy (talk · contribs) Susuman77 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Georgian Orthodox Church (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:Georgian Orthodox Church#An Oriental Orthodox church, first occurrence of dispute Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church#Edit war, second occurrence of dispute, which resulted in an edit war Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church#Independence from AAC, discussion following the above mentioned edit war Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church#GOC and AAC independence dispute resolution, my initial attempt to assist in peaceful resolution Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church#Misinterpretation and selective application of sources across articles, third occurrence of dispute 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 After intervening a potentially serious edit war on the article, it was established that a dispute over interpretations and context from a particular sources had occurred. The two sources in question are from the Britannica Encyclopaedia, and are as follows Armenian Apostolic Church and Georgian Orthodox Church. Potential confusion over the interpretation/definition of the word "autocephalous", as well as the term "break away" appear to be a main benefactor of the dispute. Initially it was being portrayed that a paragraph on the main article was of concern, as it was referring to an "independence" of one religious group from another. However, a few days ago, this portrayal has now been switched to the wording within the infobox on the article itself. I invited all disputed parties to write in their own words their interpretations and understandings of the sources. At the time there were only 2 involved parties, and knew that attempting to view a comparison would be difficult. As I have no interest in the topic, nor any knowledge of it, I felt it be fair for myself to also undertake this exercise - which would also act as base-stone for me to use in comparing the other two editor's work. Another editor then added a fourth version. The dispute has reached a deadlock situation, as no party can agree on a compromise nor do they appear to be working cooperatively in wanting to read everyone else's views. 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. Wesley☀Mouse 11:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Disagree. The issues have not been solvable on the article's talk page because of a lack of detailed sources, so I don't see how mediation can help resolve things at this stage. If sources are found, and we arrive at at a stage where there is a dispute over the interpretation of sources, then I will reconsider. Meowy 15:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Agree. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Krosenstern (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Disagree (for now). The resources for dispute resolution on the talkpage have not been depleted. If 1 side is telling they do not accept the encyclopaedic sources accepted by WP implying only denial-word-fight it is not a reason for mediation request. Aregakn (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Disagree (for now). Since the request was filed, things have been moving forward on the talk page and in the article itself, as acknowledged by User:Wesley Mouse [12]. Different contributors have added reliable sources to the article already, and discussion is happening. I don't exclude however that passions might flare again regarding wording used in the most controversial sections, especially around the loaded term "independence". In my opinion, until such an event, mediation is not expressly needed. If the committee decides otherwise however, I'll be glad to help with the proceedings and provide all the information needed and my view on the dispute.--Susuman77 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (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 [•] 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Bruce Clark (legal scholar)

Bruce Clark (legal scholar) Request for formal mediation Article Bruce Clark (legal scholar) (talk)  Submitted 16 May 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Evarose3 (talk · contribs), PLEASE WITHDRAW REQUEST. APOLOGIES TO User:SarahStierch.--Evarose3 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC) SarahStierch (talk · contribs) Matthewrbowker (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Bruce Clark (legal scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SarahStierch denial is preemptory i.e., precludes good faith negotiation SarahSteirch has responded "Decline. No one has even tried to discuss any matters about this on my talk page. I haven't even had any conversation about this..." Evarose3 replies that the instructions for mediation say, "Under Primary issues (in section 2), concisely explain what content of the articles has in dispute, and what variations of this content have been proposed;..." SarahSteirch's original decision did not identify "what content," nor did she constructively suggest "what variations" Evarose3 could consider to remedy the specifically- identified content inadequacy. What she did do was to brush aside all the content as if every sub-heading in it were so defective as to defy attempts at improvement. Is she saying that no articles in Wikipedia "reads like an essay?" If so Evarose3 would have to reply that many of the very best articles in Wikipedia read very much like prize essays. This is what Evarose3 means by describing SarahSteirch's judgment as preemptive: it precludes discussion. For this reason Evarose3 finds SarahSteirch's statement disingenuous that,"I'm just a good faith editor doing my job in AfC!" Having said that she adds that the article, "reads like an extensive essay." Again, there is no door left open to discuss anything. Issues to be mediated SarahStierch reasons for judgment: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." Primary issue #1: the case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 SarahStierch leaves no door open for discussion. Her reason for judgment "reads more like" denotes an emotional feeling that is unanswerable, as opposed to a rational reason for judgment that is capable of grounding a give-and-take discussion. Issue 2 Evarose3 relies upon pillar number 5 and submits the subject Bruce Clark is notable for producing original research that constitutionally threatens the continuity of empire in an imperialist era. Like Galileo this puts his history at risk of imperialist sentiment. Issue 3 Evarose3 relies also upon the fact the article is about an original researcher whose original research is under suppression á la Galileo, as opposed to being an article about original research per se. In these circumstances the original research and its prima facie uncontested validity is relevant to the critical suppression issue, that being precisely the evidence that makes the subject of the article notable. If his research were not being suppressed Bruce Clark would be an ordinary non-notable lawyer. The presence of original research is alright so long as the sources for verification are not that, but rather are legitimate primary and secondary sources, as they are in the article in question. SarahStierch "reads more like" or "as if" Wikipedia were not an gathering of true ascertainable knowledge but rather of conventional wisdom regardless of truth (a tawdry aspiration that surely is beneath the higher Wikipedia mission in the enlightenment sense of Diderot and Voltaire.) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 --Evarose3 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2012 (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. Evarose3 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Decline. No one has even tried to discuss any matters about this on my talk page. I haven't even had any conversation about this. I'm just a good faith editor doing my job in AfC! The article for creation, seen here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bruce_Clark_(Legal_Scholar), reads like an extensive essay. Perhaps another Article for Review volunteer would disagree but I surely don't know why we need formal mediation! Sarah (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Decline - I'm quite willing to work with this author, but I got less than 12 hours after the last talk page message. This issue is not quite worthy of mediation at this point. I invite Evarose3 to post on my talk page with any other questions. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 18:01, 16 May 2012 (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. Withdrawn by filing party. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Iyengar

Iyengar Formal mediation case Article Iyengar (talk)  Submitted 11 Jun 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Mayasutra (talk · contribs), filing party Hari7478 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Iyengar#Ethnicity.2C_genetics_and_origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar 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 Explained in detail under the title For Dispute Mediation Issue 1: Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin Issue 2: The introductory line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin stating: "It is widely believed that the two sects are distinctly different in origin.[8][9]" Issue 3: A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar stating: "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[11][12]" Issue 4: A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar stating: "In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[13] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[13]" 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. = No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra 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 within seven days. Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning BERTHE WEILL

BERTHE WEILL Request for formal mediation Article Berthe Weill (talk)  Submitted 22 Jun 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute ArchiveBertheWeill (talk · contribs), filing party Artventure22 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Berthe Weill 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 : Berthe Weill died in Paris. I am her official biographer and I published a copy of official records to prove his place of death. An ancient text from a descendant assumed Berthe Weill was dead at the isle-adam but the family agreed that it was a mistake. Issue 2 : The link of official estate must be on the wiki page, in the link section. Issue 3 : Several information are from my biography of Berthe Weill(Marianne Le Morvan, Berthe Weill La petite galeriste des grands artistes, L'écarlate, Orléans, 2011), it shall be announced by footnote page, this is contrary to intellectual property to just translate without note. Issue 4 : No illustration is permitted by the Berthe Weill Estate and without the copyright "Berthe Weill Estate" Issue 5 : I have to delete the reproduction of memories of Berthe Weill, published without the consent of the descendants. No reference to the works of Pierre Sanchez should appear as they are against the law of intellectual property. 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. ArchiveBertheWeill (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agree. Artventure22 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2012 (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. Question. Has there been any attempt of prior dispute resolution in this case? -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) ArchiveBertheWeill made the same attack on French Wikipedia ; the request was rejected : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artventure22 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Reject. No prior attempts at dispute resolution. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Psilocybe hoogshagenii

Psilocybe hoogshagenii Request for formal mediation Article Psilocybe hoogshagenii (talk)  Submitted 25 Jun 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Baseheart (talk · contribs), filing party Sasata (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Psilocybe cubensis Psilocybe hoogshagenii 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 Sasata repeatedly deletes relevant info added to article on Psilocybe cubensis. Info is reliable, verifiable and conforms to Wikipedia's policies. User Sasata repeatedly deletes relevant info added to article on Psilocybe hoogshagenii. Info is reliable, verifiable and conforms to Wikipedia's policies. 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. Baseheart (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (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 agreed to mediation within seven days; no major reason to extend the time. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Psilocybe cubensis

Psilocybe cubensis Request for formal mediation Article Psilocybe cubensis (talk)  Submitted 25 Jun 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Baseheart (talk · contribs), filing party Sasata (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Psilocybe cubensis 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 Sasata repeatedly deletes relevant content added. Content is reliable and verifiable per Wikipedia's policies. 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. Baseheart (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Baseheart 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 agreed to mediation within seven days. Please bring your dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to get more appropriate assistance for your problem. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Michelle Shocked

Michelle Shocked Request for formal mediation Article Michelle Shocked (talk)  Submitted 25 Jun 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Example (talk · contribs), filing party Example2 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Example (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 Public name vs. Birth name Issue 2 Bootleg vs. authorized releases Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 factual vs. promotional Additional issue 2 sock puppet manipulation (aka Pete Lawrence) 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. Mshocked (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2012 (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 without prejudice to refiling correctly. You need to list the other parties for the request to be fully processed. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Julian calendar

Julian calendar Request for formal mediation Article Julian calendar (talk)  Submitted 03 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Raywood (talk · contribs), filing party Barek (talk · contribs), editor Berean Hunter (talk · contribs), editor Articles concerned in this dispute Julian calendar (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 Berean Hunter removed an external link that is very similar in content to other external links. Berean Hunter refused to provide a reasonable response to an earnest request for clarification. As indicated in that request for clarification, Berean Hunter seems to understand Wikipedia's rules as being inclined to prevent the sharing of valid, intellectually defensible content. Barek likewise removed an external link that is very similar in content to other external links. Barek unreasonably insists that the external link go directly to a page that will be difficult to understand, instead of going to the notes that explain and link to the external page. Additional issues (added by other parties) Raywood's additon of the link in question, which he obviously wrote, to other articles: Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars, Gregorian calendar, Julian day, Astronomical year numbering, Leap year, ISO 8601, 0 (year), Proleptic Julian calendar, Proleptic Gregorian calendar, Old Style and New Style dates, Julian year (astronomy), Tropical year, Year, Epoch (reference date), Anno Domini, Chronology, Calendar, Common Era, Calendar era, and Thursday, and whether such activity is in compliance with WP:Conflict of interest, WP:ELNO (#4 & #11), and WP:EL#ADV. 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. Raywood 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Decline. Pointless to escalate to formal mediation when no other WP:DR avenues have been investigated first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Decline. After reverting his links, I left a note on his talk page. That was the last I heard of it until the Mediationbot notice today. It makes his claim that I "refused to provide a reasonable response to an earnest request for clarification" look kind of humorous. My response is to ask for any diffs of such refusal. I believe the next proper venue for the filer's questions would be at the external links noticeboard to allow the community to comment on the suitability of his linking.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (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 - two of the involved editors declined to participate in mediation and no other avenues of dispute resolution have been attempted. For the Mediation Committee, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Paris

Paris Request for formal mediation Article Paris (talk)  Submitted 03 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute paulalexdij (talk · contribs), filing party en-bateau (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted {{la|Talk:Paris} 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 Veracity, validity, and appropriateness of the statement "Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 1,000 years, prior to the 19th century, and may have been the largest in the entire world between the 16th and 19th centuries". 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. Paulalexdij (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Agree En-bateau (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2012 (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. No prior attempts at dispute resolution. I think the best place you two can go to for resolving your dispute is the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If you try that step in good-faith without progress, then feel free to refile your request here. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Comfort women

Comfort women Request for formal mediation Article Comfort women (talk)  Submitted 10 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Student7 (talk · contribs), filing party Wingwrong (talk · contribs) Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs) Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) Yaush (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Comfort women (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:Comfort_women#Note_19._is_improper from here on, issue is discussed at length on article talk page Wingwrong's talk page 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 WP:TROLL WP:FRINGE WP:RS WP:V WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX 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. Student7 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Yaush (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I don't know if I agree or not. What exactly do people want mediated? Is it the article over all? Specifically the "Note 19" section? Qwyrxian (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. But, I'm Japanese. All members speak "EASY English" and don't speak "Roundabout expression" please.Wingwrong (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure, as per Qwyrxian above and as per Response to Mediator below and the further discussion there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Response to Mediator: I'm not sure, because I'm not sure what specifically is being requested to be mediated. There have been a number of discussions on the article talk page over the last several months; I didn't think any of them were at some sort of a locked dispute, but, maybe it was one I wasn't following closely. I don't believe anything on the article has been discussed on any noticeboard, but, again, perhaps I'm mistaken. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Answer. The parties have attempted to discuss this at length on the talk page for talk:Comfort women. There was a very abbreviated discussion on Wingwrong talk page. I have not checked other users for discussions on their talk pages. Please indicate them, if any, below. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Student7, discuss what? What specifically from the article talk page do you think needs mediating? I agree with you that much of Wingwrong's approach is POV and even Fringe. But I don't see what we need mediation about. Wingwrong isn't edit warring, the talk page hasn't become a big fight. Instead, Wingwrong often proposes things, and the rest of us tell him why he's wrong. If what you're seeking is sanctions against Wingwrong, then this isn't the right place. Furthermore, since pretty much every other user disagrees with most of what Wingwrong says (though not always--I have agreed with Wingwrong on occassion) , and simply tells him that, I don't really see what we need to mediate. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (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. Question - Have the parties had prior attempts at dispute resolution? Please respond in the discussion sections above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I, as some of the parties seem to feel as well, don't understand what the nexus issue is. Could the filing party please write a short sentence or two on what is in dispute? For example: "We disagree about how to balance the Liberal and Conservative viewpoints on tax policy". Something short and sweet. Lord Roem (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Rejected. Lack of prior dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. It appears that my request was out of line. I withdraw it for lack of support and apologize to anyone who was inconvenienced by it. I will cease to monitor the article. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Sator Square

Sator Square Request for formal mediation Article Sator Square (talk)  Submitted 30 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Ministryofdew (talk · contribs), filing party "and your automated system" Articles concerned in this dispute Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) i want to add an external link to my sator square research group but your automated system deletes it because it is on facebook http://www.facebook.com/groups/463929096964050/ Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. i don't know how to get your system to accept my external link to my sator square research group http://www.facebook.com/groups/463929096964050/ 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 your system deletes my sator square external link http://www.facebook.com/groups/463929096964050/ 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. Ministryofdew (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (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 request is malformed. Please re-file with the required information, including the names of parties to the dispute. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Empathetic Logic Analysis

Empathetic Logic Analysis 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 [•] 23:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC), on behalf of the Mediation Committee. Formal mediation case Article Empathetic Logic Analysis (talk)  Submitted 02 Aug 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute ReismanS (talk · contribs) Lexein (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Empathetic Logic Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empathetic_Logic_Analysis 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: Despite attempts to provide the editor with the requested information they seek to validate the material on WP, the editor has rebuffed all efforts. Issue 2: The editor has questioned the integrity of the author, while hiding behind a cryptic user name Issue 3: [Latin] Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 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. ReismanS (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2012 (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. Please take grievances about the conduct or behaviour of another editor to WP:WQA. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)