Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/39

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Calvary Chapel

request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 11:48, November 15 2008 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Issue 1: Supposition that material is "unencyclopedic" and to be reverted without discussion.
Issue 2: Supposition that material is historically significant, well sourced, and reasonably neutral in tone after multiple revisions.
Issue 3: Supposition that material is an attack on a living person.
Issue 4: Supposition that material is factual, sufficiently sourced in regards to a living person, and an appropriate addition to a section titled "criticisms."
Issue 5: Supposition that criticisms by published authors about the influential founder and head of a church do not apply to the church movement in general and are therefore not appropriate for this article.
Issue 6: Supposition that the specific criticisms focus on the direct influence of the founder and head of the church on the church itself, thereby making the information relevent to an article about the church.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1: Supposition that 24 hours is adequate for all parties to respond or, by default, agree to re-add contentious content. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issue 2
Additional issue 3

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

Agree. Don Van Duyse (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Reject.

This dispute is very much in its early stage: the content disagreement appears to have sprung up only a few days ago, and to date there has been little in the way of attempts at dispute resolution. I note that a third opinion has been filed—which is a step in the correct direction—but I'd encourage the parties to this dispute to try their hand at more gentle forms of dispute resolution before considering formal Mediation; filing a Mediation Cabal request is my overriding suggestion. WP:RFM/COMMON#Failure to demonstrate sufficient prior dispute resolution attempts will provide some useful background reading. On a further level, I would encourage all parties to this case to consider that the resolution of content disputes comes from exhaustive discussion in the first instance; edit warring leads nowhere—and indeed is disruptive—and will probably simply get you blocked. Avoid edit warring, and always bear in mind that the "other side" really does have something of substance to say! Good luck in your attempts at resolving your differences.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 11:19, November 25, 2008.

Involved parties

Downzero (talk · contribs), filing party
Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)
This flag once was red (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Talk:Barack Obama: Third opinion attempted.
MedCab case link.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Filing party asserts that Obama is not the President-elect because he does not yet meet constitutional requirements to do so.
Other party claims that consensus has been reached by media sources which clearly lack legal reasoning.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. Downzero (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC), filing party.[reply]
Disagree. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (explanation on talk page)[reply]
Disagree. See talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Reject.

Not all parties agree to the Mediation. (Unanimous and explicit party agreement is a requisite to formal Mediation: see Wikipedia:Mediation#What is mediation? for more information.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 19:06, December 2, 2008.

Involved parties

Verbal (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Dougweller (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Linda (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Moreschi (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Gandalf61 (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Sticky Parkin (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
70.186.172.75 (talk · contribs), Caleb Murdock
Mangoe (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Seth Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jane Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Constant talk on the Talk page which has gone nowhere. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Seth_Material Mediation Cabal refused to take the case because there are administrators involved. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-12-01_Seth_Material

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Issue 1. The Seth Material article is under attack by a group of editors including administrators. They have redirected it repeatedly in an attempt to effect a "stealth deletion". They have removed wholesale portions of the article without agreement from other editors, even though there is an ongoing discussion and reasons have been given why this should not be done. They have demanded additional references, and then deleted the references (and the sections referenced) because they weren't satisfied with them. As an excuse to redirect or truncate the article, they have used various principles which don't really apply (notability, fringe, in universe, ownership). They demanded "Notability" references, but they then removed references they weren't satisfied with. They now object to the "tone", but instead of revising the article, they remove the sections that don't have the right "tone". None of these attackers apparently has any knowledge of the subject, and their intent appears to be to minimize or remove the article, so it appears that they are not acting in good faith.
Issue 2. The Seth Material article was a spin-off from the Jane Roberts article because the Seth Material information had become too extensive for a biographical article. This spin-off was requested and suggested by many people, including a mediator. Now they wish to return that information to that article (in truncated form) though it clearly doesn't belong there.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

WP:FRINGE Issues: The main "attack" here is the insistence by most of the named parties that that the subject at hand be treated consistently with other paranormal issues. This has in practice revolved around three particular issues:

Jane Roberts and this Seth are not independently notable, so there is inevitably some impetus towards putting the whole thing in one article.

The scope of the information has tended to grow and grow. There is considerable disagreement about how much of "Seth's" teaching should be included, and a dogged insistence that it be properly cited.

User:Caleb Murdock insists on treating this material as if it were a conventional religion, while at the same time assigning it a prominent place in new age thought. There has been some small issue about the latter, though I think in the end it can be accurately assessed and properly sourced. The first facet is producing the most trouble, however. "Seth" makes some exceedingly fringey claims about other religions (especially Christianity), and Murdock is having a great deal of trouble, in my opinion, putting any distance between him adherence to these claims and the dubious character they have. The article tends to slip into an "in-world" voice which often pushes the text into WP:UNDUE territory.

The upshot is that Murdock is being extremely possessive of the articles and is particularly resistant to an excisions, even temporary ones. It seems to me that at the moment a cooperative approach to the articles is impossible due to his intransigence. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

, filing party.
Agree. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree because as the statement above says, numerous admins and other editors have tried to merge these articles because the subjects are not independently notable. Almost all the relevant info is now also in the Jane Roberts article as pertinent to her article, so it's now time for one of the articles to go to WP:AFD in my humble opinion, as it's not got sufficient independent notability. I imagine 'Seth Material' is a better title though as more distinctive and perhaps more well known, but both are probably equally worth considering/discussion, but that hopefully won't need mediation.:) Sticky Parkin 01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Request rejected. Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

(Unanimous and explicit agreement from all parties is a requisite to formal Mediation; see WP:M#What is mediation?.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Thayer

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 15:25, December 10, 2008.

Involved parties

Rwiggum (talk · contribs), filing party
G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Maria Thayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[1]

MedCab case link.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

The primary issue began with his reverting one of my edits to the page. The article is of an actress, and my edit consisted of putting her filmography into a table, unlinking redlinked articles, and removing what I felt to be ancilary information, including listing the number of episodes she starred in for each television series listed and the inclusion of two DVD extras listed as "films". (This is because the information listed is taken directly from IMDB). I later reinstated my edits. When they were again reverted, I took it to his talk page. I explained to him that I felt his edits were unconstructive, as they added unnecessary information while hurting the visual layout of the page. In his response, he explained that he felt my edits removed important information, and that my removal of information was, in fact, unconstructive. After some more back-and-forth on our talk pages and arguments about the issue, I decided to bring this to mediation. (Note: G.-M. Cupertino keeps removing talk page comments from both his and my talk pages. For easier reference, here is the most complete version of his talk page and mine.)

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Sick of losing time!... To hell with all this!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Reject.
Not all parties agree to the Mediation. (Unanimous and explicit party agreement is a requisite to formal Mediation.)
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 16:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 19:21, December 12, 2008.

Involved parties

Physchim62 (talk · contribs), filing party
Brews ohare (talk · contribs)
Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs)
Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Talk:Speed of light#Use of the symbol 'c' for the speed of light

and subsequent sections

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2008#Question of Wikipedia policy

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

The usage of c or c₀ to refer to the speed of light in free space in the article on the speed of light.
The weight to be given to recommendations from official bodies to use c₀ for this physical constant.

Obviously the two are connected, but have given rise to separate disputes.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

That the section should state that use of 'c' for the speed of light may originate from the word 'constant' as stated in the cited reference. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. Tempers are rising, even between editors who share roughly the same PoV. I think mediation would be useful. Physchim62 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Putting a final arbitration upon the matter just complicates a simple discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. As Brews ohare says this just complicates matters unnecessarily. Even though there were differences of opinion, a good consensus had been reached which I am sure will prevail in the case of mediation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Request rejected. Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

(Unanimous and explicit agreement from all parties is a requisite to formal Mediation; see WP:M#What is mediation?.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Peppercorn Class A1

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 13:37, December 5, 2008.

Involved parties

Biscuittin (talk · contribs), filing party
Tony May (talk · contribs)
MickMacNee (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

LNER Peppercorn Class A1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Issue 1. I assert that there is a dispute about the article. Mick MacNee denies this.
Issue 2. I object to the heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class" because it states, as a fact, something which is only an opinion.
Issue 3. I wish to see an end to the edit war on the article.
Issue 4. I wish the article to present both sides of the controversy to give a neutral point of view.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

In short, two issues. Firstly, the imposition by Tony May of a personally preferred style on LNER Peppercorn Class A1 without consensus, primarily through bad faith and disruptive edit warring, but coupled with an apparent judicicous use of misrepresentation, misdirection, synthesis and speculation (full explanation here). Secondly, the continued misunderstanding by Biscuitin of the concept of teach the controversy, (whereby the controversy needs to represented by external sources, and cannot be claimed as fact simply based on the opinions of editors), in the face of explanation of this to him by myself and other editors.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

I agree with the filing. Biscuittin (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the filing. Tony May (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion moved to the talk page. AGK 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Reject.

All parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 10:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Chapman

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 15:17, December 16, 2008.

Involved parties

Jack1956 (talk · contribs), filing party
Berean Hunter (talk · contribs)
DreamGuy (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

MedCab case link.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Image has been nominated for deletion on several occasions by DreamGuy. on August 22 2008 the decision was Keep.
DreamGuy starts deleting the image again in December 2008 - refusing to accept the Keep decision. This then turns into edit-warring with him deleting and myself and other editors reinstating.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. Jack1956 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refused - I've see way too many cases of people who called themselves mediators who jumped in on issues they already picked a side on to try to pretend that whatever they say goes. Until the mediation system here is completely overhauled, I as a matter of policy refuse all such filings -- and this fact is well known by the editor who filed this, so I consider the attempt to be made in bad faith. Besides, this particular issue is governed by legal issues apparently too complicated for anyone not versed on the topics, and so some volunteer mediator's opinion in the matter is totally irrelevant. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this dispute was resolved by bringing in someone familiar with copyright law seprate from mediation, and it was determined that I was absolutely correct: Use of the image was a violation; it is still under copyright in the US and the UK; and the people edit warring to put it back and removing the notices I put on it to demonstrate the copyright status were wrong.DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Request rejected. Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

(Unanimous and explicit agreement from all parties is a requisite to formal Mediation; see WP:M#What is mediation?.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi

Rashid Khalidi Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 21:31, December 9, 2008.

Involved parties

Avraham (talk · contribs), filing party
Wikidemon (talk · contribs) notified
Historicist (talk · contribs) notified
Mackan79 (talk · contribs) notified
Jaakobou (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Long and detailed discussions on the talkpages including Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 2, Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 3, Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 4, and current Talk:Rashid Khalidi.
A Request for Comment here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies
MedCab case link here which was closed because of lack of involvement by mediator.
Requests for input on various Wikipedia policy talk pages: WT:BLP#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue & WT:RS#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Issue 1: That of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Should the information about Rashid Khalidi's association with the Palestine Liberation Organization, his denial of any official involvement, and the response by others (a journalist present at the time and an Islamist scholar) that Khalidi's denial is incorrect be present in the article on Rashid Khalidi. This can be broken down into various sub-issues:
1. Is the fact that Rashid Khalidi may have had a significant relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization appropriate for the article on Rashid Khalidi?
2. Is the fact that Rashid Khalidi denied any official involvement appropriate for the article on Rashid Khalidi?
3. Is the fact that others have either researched the issue and arrived at the conclusion that Rashid Khalidi had an official relationship, or are recounting their own experience with Rashid Khalidi as a PLO spokesman appropriate for the article on Rashid Khalidi?
Issue 2: That of WP:BLP and WP:RS. Are the sources brought to support any and every of the above contentions, should they be found appropriate for the article, sufficient to support the article, weighing the requirements of WP:BLP and the provisions of WP:RS.
1. Are the actual historical print and radio pieces that distinctly, clearly, and unambigously refer to Khalidi as a PLO spokesman considered acceptable as secondary sources, are they considered acceptable primary sources, or are they unacceptable?
2. Is the letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman considered a reliable secondary source, a reliable primary source, or a non-reliable to support Lippman's reminiscence of Khalidi being an official PLO spokesman?
3. Is Ron Kampeas's piece on what is titled a blog, but is published by a reliable third-party news organization, in which he conceded to Martin Kramer's analysis that it is "irrefutable" that Khalidi was an official spokesman a reliable secondary source, a reliable primary source, or a non-reliable to support Kampeas's opinion that Khalidi was less-than-honest in his denial?
4. Is Martin Kramer's analysis, on his own self-published blog of the historical print and radio sources (referenced above) considered an acceptable as a secondary source, considered acceptable as a primary source, or considered unacceptable to support his conclusion and opinion that Khalidi's denial was incorrect?

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- User:HistoricistHistoricist 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Request rejected. Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

(Unanimous and explicit agreement from all parties is a requisite to formal Mediation; see WP:M#What is mediation?.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 16:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 02:16, December 16, 2008.

Involved parties

Syntacticus (talk · contribs), filing party
Wikidemon (talk · contribs)
Bali ultimate (talk · contribs)
Die4Dixie (talk · contribs)
Will Beback (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

I have attempted to reach out to the parties. They have not been interested in constructive discussions of the issues involved. It has degenerated to the point that no matter what I do the other editors threaten me with sanctions such as blocking. I am at my wit's end. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now
MedCab case link.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article is grossly unbalanced. Although ACORN undoubtedly has done some good deeds over the years there is almost no mention of the maProxy-ConnProxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

oxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

tion: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

crimes and other improprieties that the group and its employees have been accused or convicted of. In other words, for a group with such an unsavory history, the article is remarkably upbeat and positive. Efforts to insert factually accurate information about a legal proceeding launched by dissident board members in order to compel disclosure of financial and legal documents pertaining to the embezzlement perpetrated by the founder's brother have been consistently answered by other editors with allegations of impropriety, reverts, and threats against this editor.

Credible sources continue to be excluded from the article on a consistent basis.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

Parties, please re-indicate whether you agree or not in the section below.

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree Syntacticus (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept - it appears that other respected editors are accepting, and the exercise may do some good if everyone is willing. Reject - behavioral issue. Resolution of content question about whether to use a clearly unreliable source to claim the organization dealt crack cocaine is obvious, does not need mediation, and had inadequate attempts to resolve (consisting mostly of incivility and edit warring on the part of the proposing editor, with everyone else in unanimous disagreement). Additionally, the opening editor is accused of being a WP:SOCK of a WP:COI editor (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus). There is no reason for mediation, and no way mediation could be productive, under these circumstances. Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) changing in light of acceptance by other editors - Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

reject Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Bali ultimate makes false, unprovable accusations as to WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Accusations do not equal truth. Moreover, I understand this dispute process is appropriate for content disputes and behavioral issues are beyond the scope of the panel. Syntacticus (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept. Die4Dixie (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept, though since I've only made a single talk page posting about ACORN I'm not sure why I was added to the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, was I not supposed to add you to this? I have never taken a dispute this far before. Syntacticus (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have removed all comments from this page. Signatures only, please; any remarks you have may be made on the talk page. (WillBeBack's comments and the reply retained for background.) AGK 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Second round of voting

All parties, please re-indicate whether you agree with this mediation or not. A simple "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~" will suffice.

Thanks, AGK 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disagree Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree Let mediation proceed. Syntacticus (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Request for parties

The above vote section is in disarray; I confess myself unable to ascertain which parties have—after a variety of strikings, additions, removals, and redactions—agreed (if any) and which have disagreed (if any) with this case. All parties please (re-)indicate whether they agree with this Mediation or not, at the #Second round of voting section.

Thanks for your co-operation (and please keep things tidy this time ;), AGK 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject.

Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean cuisine

39 Mediation.

view • edit • hist • watch • delete
Filed: 15:29, December 23, 2008.

Involved parties

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Melonbarmonster2 is arguing that edits are not factual in the Korean cuisine article including the mentioning of dog meat and has begun to question other facts in the article. I know the facts are accurate as I am the editor that wrote the sections and I have properly sourced the edits from an academic author on the subject. Melonbarmonster2 makes claims that these sources do not contain the information stated, when in fact they do.
The fact tags added by Melonbarmonster2 should be removed, which he keeps adding back as they are no accurate, and he is the only editor disputing the issues currently in the article, even though they are properly sourced from an academic writer on the subject.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below with either "Agree. ~~~~" or "Disagree. ~~~~". Every listed party should agree to this request, or it will be rejected; if one or more party disagrees—or fails to sign within seven days—then the case will be rejected. (See here for more information.) All comments will be removed, but may be made at the talk page.

Agree. Chef Tanner (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, only if all (and I mean all) relevant discussion at Talk:Korean cuisine is first read thoroughly by all parties participating in such mediation, and that all parties participating in such mediation provide a statement affirming that they have done so, before they begin discussions of any type here. I have seen prior mediations at contentions pages prove ineffectual due to mediators skimming later discussions but not reading earlier ones, and thus, being ineffectual. Badagnani (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - A suggestion might be made to review previous issues that have occurred on the article in the past. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I think we're over the issue regarding "inclusion of the dog meat" though.--Caspian blue 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Issues to be mediated are inappropriately written. They read more like personal complaints or argument of Tanner's personal position rather than an objective presentation of to be resolved issues that are at the heart of the dispute. I'm for mediation but issues being mediated has to be clear and accurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all non-MedCom comments should go on the talk page.

Invitation to parties.

One party has disagreed with this request because it is his belief the "Issues to be Mediated" are not clear enough. I will allow a few days for the issues to be tightened up and for Melonbarmonster to reevaluate the re-written issues, and then accept or reject this case as appropriate.

AGK 22:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not believe they are clear enough because they are about his POV and he disagrees there is an issue because he feels his POV is superior, so with him not accepting mediation the issue will just continue. There is no need to "tighten" up the issues, he believes that dog meat should not be part of the article and the rest of us do.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. A few extra days have been given now for change in opinions and we still have one party who rejects the case. Mediation on Wikipedia cannot proceed without all relevant parties hence why this case is rejected. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]