Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/49

Rejected request for mediation concerning Bulgaria

Bulgaria Request for formal mediation Article Bulgaria (talk)  Submitted 29 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Ximhua (talk · contribs), filing party Ceco31 (talk · contribs) Gligan (talk · contribs) Apcbg (talk · contribs) V3n0M93 (talk · contribs) Drustur90 (talk · contribs) Laveol (talk · contribs) Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) Tourbillon (talk · contribs) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs) Jingiby (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted There was a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Bulgaria And a formal dispute request: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Bulgaria 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 Info box Formation section of Bulgaria article, which was in effect since 2006 was changed, with the date 681 eliminated from it. 2006 version: Formation: - Established Bulgaria 681 - Third Bulgarian State 3 March 1878 - Tsardom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908 2012 version:  Independence from the Ottoman Empire  Principality of Bulgaria19 February 1878  Declaration of Independence 22 September 1908 The users Ceco31,Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua & V3n0M93 disagreed with the removal of the date 681 from the Info box and expressed their opinion on the talk page: Talk:Bulgaria. A number of sources stating that Bulgaria beings in 681 were was listed, as follows: Encyclopedia Britanica Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53 Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97 R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9 Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265 M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954 This says that is one of the oldest sovereign states in Europe founded in 681: Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60 Also, it was mentioned that Poland, Serbia,Croatia, Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain, Germany among others have a Formation section, which accurately shows the historical dates for those counties. Several attempts for compromise were proposed, by adding a separation line, etc. as listed below: Formation: Prior political entities: - Old Great Bulgaria 632 - First Bulgarian Empire 681 - Second Bulgarian Empire 1185 Third Bulgarian State: - Principality of Bulgaria 3 March 1878 - Tsardom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908 The opposing side rejected the proposed compromise. 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. Ximhua (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I'll be in if this goes ahead, but I also have some reservations about some of the accounts involved, socking-wise, so I think the SPI should be waited out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Retracted, for the time being. I'm still willing to participate, but not as long as User:Ximhua is part of the process. The interactions surrounding this request (here, here, here) have convinced me that constructive, rational dispute resolution with this person is not possible. If any others of the editors on the other side of the debate have an interest in this process going ahead, maybe they can convince Ximhua to stay out of it voluntarily; if that doesn't happen, or if he doesn't get banhammered in the meantime, I'm afraid this is doomed to failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Formally agree, even though the summary is completely biased and only holds the arguments of one of the sides. It would've been much better if it were presented by a non-involved user. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't worry about that. The summary has no significance at all for the further proceedings. Whatever is said on this page here is only about establishing the need for dispute resolution, not about arguing for this or that outcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, on second thought, I have to agree that rambling and argumentative statement was annoying and would have been detrimental to the further proceedings, so I've replaced it with something more concise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Aaaand... he's reverted it. This doesn't bode well for the constructiveness of this process. See my comment to him here: [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Your comment to me includes, the following: "About this [2]: I honestly don't care what the formal rules are in that place.... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)" It is good to know you don't care about rules. Luckily most wikipedian's do. I have a suggestion however, let's just have the mediators do their work?(Ximhua (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) ...says the one Canvassing [2], asking users to intercede for your cause [3], submitting Mediation/noticeboard notices only to the users involved on your side of the dispute (13:32 to 13:36 on July 27 and 15:49 to 15:50 on July 29) and pushing for dispute closure in order to achieve your purpose [4]. Your behaviour is well beyond disruptive and against any Wikipedia guidelines, not to mention that it also causes a massive drain of resources and waste of time to the users involved. I believe the majority of users involved are this close to exclude any possibility of constructiveness on your part. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Dear Mediation Committee, how can I facilitate this further so you can start reviewing this case? I'm not interested in petty accusations, but in moving this forward and reaching a compromise and final solution. Please, kindly assist. (Ximhua (talk) 19:50, 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. Note. There presently is a sockpuppet investigation into the filing party of this RfM. This may suggest user conduct issues outside the scope of this process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Note. Sockpuppet investigation closed without any adverse findings. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Filing party: Please re-write the primary issues so that their meaning is clear. Your summary of the issues of this dispute is too long, and not easily readable. Thank you. AGK [•] 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation within seven days; no consensus to open either, due to potential conduct issues. Reccomend an RfC before going back to RfM process. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Update applied, please let me know if anything else is needed. Ximhua (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Very disappointed... will start an RFC Ximhua (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Geocode

Geocode Request for formal mediation Article Geocode (talk)  Submitted 30 Jul 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute New Media (talk · contribs), filing party Closeapple (talk · contribs) Uncle G (talk · contribs) Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) Colapeninsula (talk · contribs) Sussexonian (talk · contribs) Orangemike (talk · contribs) JohnCD (talk · contribs) The Bushranger (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Geocode (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. Articles for Deletion - Geocode Requests for Undeletion - Geocode 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 - Restoration of the Geocode article. On 17 June 2012 Closeapple (talk · contribs) began a review of the Geocode article to determine if it should be recommended for deletion. In his review he stated “No evidence given of WP:GNG (or any references at all) after 5 years for this (allegedly brand-name) product.” He supports his call for a review by stating that this debate is also being discussed in the list of Software-related deletion discussions and the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. No references can be found in these discussions regarding the debate as to the Geocode article. On 25 June 2012 Colapeninsula (talk · contribs) recommended redirecting the article to Geocoding because “Can't find any sources to indicate notability”. On 1 July 2012 Sussexonian (talk · contribs) noted that “Template:Infobox settlement contains an optional field Geocode and the usage note for the field says "See Geocode." There are settlements in several countries with that field completed but clearly the data are not related to the specific proprietary Geocode covered in the article, unless the product is WP:MADEUP and the inventor just added the numbers.” On 1 July 2012 The Bushranger (talk · contribs) redirected Geocode to Geocoding. On 22 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) requested undeletion of the Geocode article. On 22 July 2012 Orange Mike (talk · contribs) replied to the request for undeletion. It was “not done”. The reasoning he provided is that “The article "Life" does not get hogged by the magazine, or the cereal, or the games.” However, the article “Life” has this reference – “For other uses, see Life (disambiguation).” On the Life (disambiguation) article there is an entry “Life (cereal), a cereal distributed by the Quaker Oats Company”, which redirects to a separate article on the cereal “Life”. Therefore, the justification used by Orange Mike does not support his position that there cannot be a separate article on the Geocode. On 22 July 2012 JohnCD (talk · contribs) made a note on the request for undeletion. On 24 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) provided a declared COI and also provided detailed comments with online references to the cited material on JohnCD (talk · contribs). He also requested reestablishment of the Geocode article. On 24 July 2012 JohnCD (talk · contribs) posted a note on The Bushranger (talk · contribs) to request that he review this issue as the editor who redirected the Geocode article. (JohnCD’s note on The Bushranger (talk · contribs) page has since been removed.) 24 July 2012 The Bushranger (talk · contribs) made a note on New Media (talk · contribs) stating “I'm willing to restore the page to your userspace for you to work on and improve it, addressing the issues that caused the page to be deleted so that it might be able to be restored to articlespace,” On 25 July 2012 New Media (talk · contribs) responded to The Bushranger requesting undeletion of the Geocode article or listing the Geocode as part of the “List of geocoding systems” on the Geocoding page. As of 29 July 2012 no further discussion has occurred on issue of restoration of the Geocode article. The Geocode article remains being redirected to the Geocoding article. Issue 2 - Geocode (disambiguation) Geocode, a patented system for representing the geospatial attributes of an entity or objects location, should be listed on the Geocoding page under ““List of geocoding systems”. It should also be listed with a link to a separate Geocode article like the Life cereal. If there is further explanation required on the Geocoding article then a Geocoding (disambiguation) article should be created. The Geocoding (disambiguation) article should be linked to a Geocode article with the historical Geocode information and a Geocode (disambiguation) that links to whatever usages there are of the term Geocode. This would enable the same type of referencing used for many usages of the term “Life”. Issue 3 - COI New Media (talk · contribs) has a declared COI and requests to not create or edit articles relating to Geocode or Geocoding content. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 - Notability / reliable sources. The article on the 'proprietary system' called GEOCODE contained no references to verify its existence or notability, not even the name of the developer, home webpage link or anything other than patent numbers. There are no examples of what the code actually is, and given the unimaginative name there may be more than one commercial product by this name. Sussexonian (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Additional issue 2 - Undeletion request I did not see the reply requesting undeletion (which is on User talk:Cmburn, as it happens, that account not yet being renamed to New Media); however looking it over the 'additional sources' provided are a U.S. copyright, two U.S. patents, and a U.S. trademark - none of which supply any notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 30 July 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. New Media 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. (I was neither for or against, so may not really be an involved party. My sole reason for commenting was as per the quote above. Also please note I have corrected that quote of my AFD comment -only a meaningless part sentence was quoted) Sussexonian (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. (My participation here was merely housekeeping - closing the AfD in accordance with its WP:CONSENSUS and offering userification, which was not taken up.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. Closeapple (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Agree, though my participation was only to make a note on the REFUND request linking to the AfD and, when the request was repeated on my talk page, to point the requester to The Bushranger as closing admin and notify The Bushranger. Note that at this moment New Media (talk · contribs) is not a registered account; this request was filed by Cmburn (talk · contribs), who uses "New Media" as signature and has filed a CHU request to change to that username. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Agree - but want to point out that "New Media" seems like a possible username violation, and adds to an air of suspicious behavior surrounding Cmburn alias "New Media". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Agree. However, it should be noted that my role in this was limited to relisting the AFD discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 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. Reject. Notability is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and decisions about whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion in any way cannot be made in mediation proceedings. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Austrian School

Austrian School Request for formal mediation Article Austrian School (talk)  Submitted 12 Aug 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Mmahoney393 (talk · contribs), filing party Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Austrian School (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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1=Your editor, Lawrencekhoo, has repeatedly deleted sourced material and threatened to block me for vandalism because he doesn't like the truth. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Mmahoney393 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I agree.Mmahoney393 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Reject: Obviously another time waster initiated by a sock of the same banned user. See here for the SPI case. LK (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC) "Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Signs_of_disruptive_editing What are you afraid of, Lawrence?Mmahoney393 (talk) 11:47, 13 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. Reject. This dispute is obviously unsuited to formal mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 13:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Patricia Caicedo

Patricia Caicedo Request for formal mediation Article Patricia Caicedo (talk)  Submitted 22 Aug 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute singerpat (talk · contribs), filing party RHaworth (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Patricia_Caicedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)AFD Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. WP:COI. The primary editor is User:Singerpat, who is obviously the subject of the article (in an edit summary, she said, "Author, Patricia Caicedo. This picture is used in my own website www.patriciacaicedo.com"). The article is also nearly completely unreferenced. ShadowHalo 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Delete - unreferenced autobiography. MER-C 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 10:08, 15 December 2006 (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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 A few years ago, in 2007 there was an article talking about me and my work and I uploaded a picture of some of the covers of my CDs to it, and the article was erased saying that it was self promotion. I tried to create the article again and it was cancelled again. I tried to communicate with one of the editors, explaining that I´m a soprano, musicologist and physician with many CDs, books and concerts and I¨m expert in the field of Latin-American and Spanish Art Song. All this information can be verified on the Internet in many sources as well as in the WHo´s Who in American Women, Who´s WHo in the world and WHo´s Who in America publications. At the time the response was negative and I honestly did not follow up since I´m busy. I would like to have the page back, it does not have to be written by me, the editors of Wikipedia can do it. But I´m writing today because I consider the close of my entry to be unfair and would be grateful if somebody would answer and review the case. I own the copyright of all my album covers as well as my own pictures. You can visit my site at www.patriciacaicedo.com 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. singerpat (talk) 17:21, 22 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. Reject. Decisions to delete an article may be challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Mediation is fundamentally unsuited to this complaint. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Rangers F.C.

Rangers F.C. Request for formal mediation Article Rangers F.C. (talk)  Submitted 08 Aug 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Andrewcrawford (talk · contribs), filing party Adam4267 (talk · contribs) Allen231 (talk · contribs) Andevaesen (talk · contribs) Andrewcrawford (talk · contribs) Aradioham (talk · contribs) BadSynergy (talk · contribs) Bald Zebra (talk · contribs) BBO (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) Britmax (talk · contribs) Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) Dingowasher (talk · contribs) Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs) Escape Orbit (talk · contribs) Fishiehelper2 (talk · contribs) Gefetane (talk · contribs) Jmorrison230582‎ (talk · contribs) Johnelwaq (talk · contribs) LittleEdwyn (talk · contribs) MisterVodka (talk · contribs) Monkeymanman (talk · contribs) PatGallacher (talk · contribs) Ricky072 (talk · contribs) S2mhunter (talk · contribs) Skyblueshaun (talk · contribs) Smoothy (talk · contribs) Sparhelda (talk · contribs) Spiritofstgeorge (talk · contribs) Superbhoy1888 (talk · contribs) TerriersFan (talk · contribs) thumperward (talk · contribs) Tim D Enchantah (talk · contribs) WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Newco Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Subsidiary articles, for instance about current players, the Youth Team, and so on. Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted The dispute started on the Rangers F.C. talk page and since then discussions at 40 and 50 topics and here, here, here, here, here, here, here, on the topic. Also after the creating of the Newco Rangers page discussion has started at talk also here too. For various users involved in the dispute, talk pages: see below for users involved, some editors have archiving set-up and some discussion might be in archives. After the creating of the new page The rangers football club Ltd renamed to newco rangers now. There was a AFD and the result was keep. The dispute then went to wikiproject football to get wider non biased view on the situation several times: here, here, here, here, here Each time no editor is willing to get involved in this sensitive topic. There was also a indirect one here Then the dispute went to the dispute resolution noticeboard however no volunteers where willing to help mediate the situation and no consensus was reached again. The next stage was to be informal mediation but this has closed. It has also went to the administrators noticeboard, administrators noticeboard which led to a new AFD the result was no consensus. An attempt to make a comprise is being tried with the sandbox version but no guarantees it will be accepted by both sides of the argument. However no agreement can be reached on this. A request for comment was being made at User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft but as this is not binding and this dispute is not getting anywhere then i request to come here instead 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 there be one article or two? Do we class the club as alive or dead and a new club replaced it? Is there a precedent like either the Leed Utd example or Halifax Town example. If so should wikipedia be following this or the sources. Should the primary sources hold more weight as 3rd party sources take the primary sources and introduce new words and opinions into the news article Additional issues (added by other parties) Is the best solution to move Rangers F.C to 'Rangers F.C. (1872)' and then move Newco Rangers to 'Rangers F.C.'? That way, the newco Rangers article will be the article about the current club and all existing articles that link to the Rangers FC article will continue to link to the article about the current club. The Rangers FC (1872) article could then deal with the club prior to its demise in 2012. Undoubtedly, both articles would stress the very strong links with the other, making it easy for readers to find their way about between the two as necessary. It works for other liquidated/relaunched clubs with two articles, so why not for Rangers? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:51, 2 August 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. Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Gefetane (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Sparhelda 13:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. BadSynergy (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Dingowasher (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Adam4267 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Ricky072 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Andevaesen (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. PatGallacher (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. LittleEdwyn (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 08:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. S2mhunter (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. BBO (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. MisterVodka (talk) 21:56, 16 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. Please do not use special formatting (like multi-column lists) or give us excessively detailed summaries of the parties involved. Mediation is not suitable for huge groups of disputants, and in any case I doubt a hundred and sixty-nine people are arguing about this article. At this point, we require Andrew (the filing party) to do a few things: i would say about 100 of the 169 are involved, unless you understand football within Scotland and what rangers and celtic have done or tried to do it hard to understand, that is why this dispute is nearly impossible to resolve--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The list of pages involved in this dispute has been stripped back to simply Rangers F.C.. If some other articles are directly involved, then please add them again. If the articles are only involved so far as, say, they would link to an alternative article or to Rangers F.C. depending on the result of this dispute, then do not list them; they are not important. Similarly, biographies about football players currently playing for the club which may have to list the new club as a separate signing are only peripherally involved; please do not include these. I am happy enough to strip them back as long as it accept the future of all the other articles i posted are affected by these two directly.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The core issue seems to be "Is the current Rangers F.C. a separate organisation from the 'former' club, and should separate articles be used for them both?". I've therefore stripped the list of issues back to only this. If there are other very important aspects to the dispute, then please re-add these to the list; but remember that too many issues will mean an unfocussed and rambling mediation which will quickly end in failure. i changed on of the issues and added--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Questions about sources are arguments concerning the primary issue and should therefore not be listed as secondary issues. Save these for use in the mediation proceedings, if any are opened as a result of this request. the sources are the primary issue of the dispute, firstly primary sources should they outweigh 3rd party because the 3rd party take the primary sources and write there own opinion on it and that can be biased. secondly because the sources are split down the middle for both sides of the argument then you have the problem of how do you decided what to do, as you cant have two article saying about two clubs but really there is one, nor can you have it say there is one club when really there is two--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) You say above that "A request for comment was being made [..] but as this is not binding and this dispute is not getting anywhere then i request to come here instead". Please clarify that you have read Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy and understand that mediators do not adjudicate disputes (but exist to help disputants reach an agreement). i am well aware that this is not binding but as you try to guide users to a resolution that suits both sides there more chance it will be accepted but if it not then this will have to move further up to higher up probably something like arbcom as you can not honestly tell me that it is fine to have 100 of articles pertinently locked or edit warring going on all the time, if the user here can not reach a agreement with your help someone higher up in wikipedia will have to make the decision and then everyone can not argue as it out of there hands--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Also, the Mediation Committee's bot account usually automatically notifies the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been opened. Until the above four issues are resolved to the Mediation Committee's satisfaction, we have directed the bot to hold all notifications. To ensure the listed parties are not notified without our all-clear, please do not remove the <!-- end user list --> text. as i have tried to say above this dispute is very sensitive and as such it not going to be easily resolved, one user summed it up well with it is rangers fan versus the rest of scottish football fans because it is seen as they have cheated the game, cheated the taxman and countless other things so fans from rangers side dnt want this known, and fans of opposing teams want to rub it in there faces, i know this goes against assume good faith but there no point trying to assume it when i understand scottish football well, most people can tell you during this whole dispute i have took both sides because i believe both are right so i aint not assuming good faith i just know underneath it that this is the main problem but it not one that can be mediated so you have to try get someone everyone comprises on and a consensus can be formed. i should also point out that there is quite a few users i know are on holiday so might not be able to accept straight away could a long time frame of about 4-6 weeks be given for users to accept as there is a lot there, i will look at trying to trim it down more, one user might also be banned i cant be sure though well there potential more than one banned, i apogolise for taking so long but i have decided to step back from the debate i have tried my hardest to try get both sides to agree on something but i have personal life so that was more important this weekend--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much for your patience and co-operation. AGK [•] 23:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Andrew, thank you for your prompt response. I have taken the request off hold. AGK [•] 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Reject. I have discussed this request with my colleagues and we have determined that a community Wikipedia:Request for comments, not formal mediation, would best serve this dispute. We advise that you now use that process. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I am not sure what's sensitive about this. The factual reality is that there has been a clear hijacking of the Rangers FC 1872 page by Rangers FC 1872 fans to construct a wikipedia page based on what they want to print rather than printing clear definitions. The club is currently in liquidation. There is a clear distinction between Rangers FC 1872 and THE Rangers FC who were formed in 2012 by Charles Green's consortium using assets of the oldco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Northeast United States

Northeast United States Request for formal mediation Article Northeastern United States (talk)  Submitted 10 Sep 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute G. Capo (talk · contribs), filing party Apollo1758 (talk · contribs) Hoppingalong (talk · contribs) Grayshi (talk · contribs) Oldlinestate (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Northeastern United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Discussion 3rd Party. 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 case talk page. Primary issues The states of Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia not being included in the Northeastern United States article. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. First, consensus has never been reached on this topic. Secondly, the only reason why there has not been any changes in a while is because everytime a change has been made, certain editor(s) almost immediately revert the article, citing wikipedia laws. Certain Wikipedians became frustrated with this behavior, particularly when it's pretty clear that Maryland, Delaware and DC (and for that matter West Virginia) are at least sometimes considered to be Northeastern states. Since I (and others) are convinced that there should be some mention of these states in the Northeastern US article and other editor(s) are equally convinced that there should be no mention of these states in the article, we've reached an impasse. G. Capo (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Formal mediation is a last resort, not the first step in DR, especially when there has been consensus for years based on discussions archived on talk (here, for example). Making one "five-point proposal" on the current talk page without offering any RS to support the proposal is not enough to then go to mediation when the proposal does not gain consensus. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:57, 11 September 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 premature. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning CBS Records

CBS Records Request for formal mediation Article CBS Records (talk)  Submitted 05 Sep 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs), filing party Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) Rothorpe (talk · contribs) Moxy (talk · contribs) MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) 78.26 (talk · contribs) Simon.rashleigh (talk · contribs) Czarkoff (talk · contribs) So God created Manchester (talk · contribs) Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) Thumperward (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute CBS Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#CBS Records Talk:CBS Records 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 case talk page. Primary issues To summarize the dispute, there are two issues: Should pre-Sony CBS Records (1938-1990 and currently located within the Sony Music Entertainment article) have a dedicated article? And is it the primary topic of CBS Records (currently a disambiguation page)? The policies and guidelines involved include WP:LENGTH, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:AVOIDSPLIT, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Content forking, and WP:N. A summary of the current positions on the dispute can be found below the "Current consensus and closing" heading of the last DRN case. The DRN case was closed as no consensus. Discussion also took place on Talk:CBS Records Steelbeard1 adds: "This is the reason for the DAB page." The complication is that the CBS Records name is currently used by an unrelated company which is why "CBS Records" is a DAB page. That "short article" is already in place, CBS Records International and is in the existing CBS Records DAB page which should stay in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Should the CBS Records article be the default DAB page or should it be moved to a DAB page (CBS Records (disambiguation)) Is the primary CBS Records article the current incarnation founded in 2006 CBS Records (2006) How much info about former incarnations of CBS Records (outside of short incidental mention and hatnotes) be in the CBS Records (2006) article. The former incarnations of CBS Records now go by other names which are Columbia Records for the record label and Sony Music Entertainment for the record company. Additional issues (added by other parties) Not an additional issue, but more of my vision of the dispute: the parties need to agree on the organization of the topic's coverage: whether separate articles should be created for each distinctive historical name of the record label, or just a single article for a label with all its history in single location. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC) What should be done about the 1,300 or so misdirected articles that go to a previous incarnation of CBS Records which now go by other names. The solution is already in place by making the "CBS Records" article the DAB page which allow readers and editors to go the correct article and to allow editors to fix misdirected links to land in the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) To sumarize based upon informations in other discussions: As it has been repeatedly asserted that "CBS Records" as a propritary name did not exist until 2006, I think a suitable solution is that the articles CBS Records (2006) and CBS Records International be merged and moved to CBS Records as WP:Primary Topic, and then per WP:SPINOUT be expanded through use of the 5 decades of pre-Sony information covering the American history of CBS's involvement in music from 1938 to 1990 now currently in the Sony Music Entertainment#1938–90: Columbia/CBS Records article section. No need to have information about American music history held only in the article on the Japanese firm, when we can place it in context elsewhere to better serve the project and its readers. CBS Records (disambiguation) should be the proper diambig page per WP:DAB. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC) One problem with that idea. "CBS Records (2006)" is completely unrelated to the former CBS Records entities which include CBS Records International, its original record company parent which is Columbia Records and the evolved company Sony Music Entertainment. The CBS Records name did not commence until 1962 when Columbia's international arm was launched. The CBS Records parent record company name was not utilized until 1966. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Except that the former and current entities all had fiscal relationship to CBS, no matter the Japanese firm's purchase and rename, and I think my summary has merit. If you believe the topic of CBS's interest in music pre-Japanese and post-Japanese cannot be discused and examined in a single article, or that such an article cannot be a primary topic, then fine. But rather than re-argue the same points discussed elsewhere that led to this mediation, why not we just wait for a mediator? That's why we are here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC) But then the CBS parent company had also changed. Westinghouse Electric bought CBS and, after selling its non-media holdings, changed its name to CBS Corporation which was then bought by former CBS subsidiary Viacom, owned by National Amusements headed by Sumner Redstone. Redstone split up Viacom into two companies, Viacom for the entertainment holdings and CBS Corporation for the media holdings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC) You offer even more reasons for an article offering a historical overview for our readers, I should think. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC) But then when Norton started screwing up the "CBS Records" article about the 2006 incarnation, he gave clearly incorrect material such as saying that the "CBS Records" that CHS owned was a unit of "CBS Corporation" which did not exist yet as the company (later absorbed by Westinghouse) was CBS Inc. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I agree that was against policy, and that he should be reproached for it. The proper venue, as Thumperward has said, should have been to create a separate article for the pre-Sony CBS Records, and then requesting a move using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a rationale. Directly taking information from the Sony article and plopping it in the unrelated CBS Records 2006 article without any consensus or discussion was very inappropriate.--SGCM (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC) For the mediator, a timeline of the events of the dispute might be helpful. This dispute began when Norton began to (without consensus) inappropriately expand the CBS Records page (which at that time was not disambiguated and was about the unrelated 2006 company) with information on the pre-Sony CBS Records, which had at that point been located at the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 began reverting, and then Norton did, escalating the dispute into an edit war which was brought to the attention of the AN, leading to a page protection. The first discussion of the dispute is located on Talk:CBS Records (2006)/Archives/2014#CBS Records (1962–1991) vs. CBS Records (2006). Steelbeard1 tried to resolve the dispute by boldly (and without consensus), disambiguating the CBS Records page, moving the 2006 company to CBS Records (2006), and splitting CBS Records International from Sony Music Entertainment. This apparently did not satisfy Norton, because the CBS Records International only covers the international arm of the domestic subsidiary (pre-Sony CBS Records) and the domestic subsidiary was still without an article. Argument ensued and was brought to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (where the discussion initially got off track with a conduct dispute) and the Administrators' noticeboard (and twice). Discussion continued on Talk:CBS Records and the DRN, before it was brought here to Medcom when the DRN was closed as no consensus. So far this dispute has gone through two talk page discussions, three AN reports, a 3O, a DRN case, various user talk pages, and now it's here on Medcom.--SGCM (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) In summary, the proper course should have been to create a new article on the pre-Sony CBS News, and propose a request for move using the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a rationale. However, Norton, who is still subject to an indefinite topic ban on creating new articles, instead began inappropriately editing the article on the 2006 company, starting this whole mess of a dispute. Much of this mess could have been avoided if the involved editors had only discussed their edits before making them.--SGCM (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Now that Norton's ban on creating new articles has come to light, a solution may be in the works and I do not think Norton will like it one bit. So I would not mind if everything is restored to the way it was before Norton starting screwing things up and that admins take steps to make sure that this does not happen again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) As I already explained, many, many times now. I was reading an article on the President of CBS Records and when I clicked on the link to CBS Records I was bought to article on what is now CBS Records (2006). The man was not president of this business entity. Then I noticed that all 1,300 incoming links went to the wrong business entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ...and once, once, once again, the currently active incarnation of CBS Records, founded in 2006, is completely unrelated to any entity which in the past went by the name of CBS Records which means that the misdirected wikilinks must be corrected. That's why the current CBS Records page is now a DAB page intended to direct readers and editors to the correct article. Norton caused the mess when he screwed up the "CBS Records" article about the 2006 incarnation (which already had hatnotes and a brief mention about the previous CBS Records incarnations which now go by the Sony Music and Columbia Records names). Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Pls be honest - this is all messed up because of acting before thinking. You have reverted every attempt at adding information in 3 places. You have copy and pasted pages here and there. Then redirect pages and redirected links all during the talks. All because you believe that the material that really belongs in the Sony Music article. "Presidents of CBS Records" should be in the Sony article??Moxy (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Norton. Then why didn't you create an article on the correct business entity (or requested that it be created for you on the article talk page, if you were unable to), instead of changing the article on the wrong business entity, and what you knew was the wrong business entity?--SGCM (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC) May I note that this is not a random talk page or an IRC session. If the request for mediation will be accepted, all of this would be discussed properly and in more detail, so please, keep the request page quite to avoid tl;dr. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) You are correct - but the situation is not clear here at all. That said this is going to be rejected because of the convoluted primary issues that only evolved after the real primary issue. The first and only issue that should be discussed is if CBS Records should be at one page. Yes we all understand that the CBS records assets from the past were sold - however the new CBS records is again a sub company of CBS inc. So original the article was being expanded to explain the odd situation that CBS let Sony use the name for a bit. I think we all agree that CBS records parent company is CBS inc in both cases. The point in dispute was where the info should be - at Sony or CBS records. Next thing that happens was creation of new articles and redirecting links etc. So the above "primary issues" is simply the mess that has evolved from the main point. SO we have new redirects - new articles - new dab page and so on (all done by one person). Not all these were in dispute in the beginning - its the actions that resulted in trying to solve the original problem without proper over-site or discussion. So here we are talking about 5 different pages when the original problem was just about one page. This has been complicated to no end because of tha many pages now involved.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC) No, Moxy. It is crystal clear. Just look at the CBS Records DAB Page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry your right its 6 pages not 5 forgot CBS Records (disambiguation).Moxy (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The CBS Records default DAB page is doing its job as proven by [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Like I stated, the CBS Records DAB page is doing its job. Last time I checked at [6], the number of misdirecting pages is now down to 637 and falling. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC) So your almost done redirecting all the links to the pages that are still in-dispute? .Why are you not willing to wait for the outcome of the talks? I guess at this point there is now just way to many things to fix. Just a Grand fiasco - linking a 1960s CBS record to a Japaneses company not around at the time is simply nuts.Moxy (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC) If you bother to look at the first link in this thread, I had help so I did not do this alone. Also, once again, the 1960s incarnation of the CBS Records company and Sony Music are one and the same. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Correct there trying to fix a dab problem that was not there a 2 weeks ago ..get my meaning. And when you have time could you pls read this.Moxy (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Already read the article and that does not change the facts. Sony bought CBS Records. It's still the same company but it goes by a different name now which is Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC) 100 percent correct - they bought the assets and leased the name for a short time. CBS inc was and is the parent company of both CBS records incarnation - its why they leased the name to Sony - so they can use it again. Sony does not have any rights to use CBS records anymore. All this in mute now since we have no clue what links were going to CBS in the first place (You win!). Very frustrating to see all this done despite the ongoing talks about the topic - never seen this before in my 6 years here. Would be like me making Compo Company a dab page and redirecting all the links to Universal Music Group during a talk on the matter.Moxy (talk) You are absolutely wrong, Moxy. CBS Inc (controlled by William Paley, then by Larry Tisch) owned what is now Sony Music. A later incarnation of CBS, CBS Corporation (controlled by Sumner Redstone), owns the active 2006 incarnation of CBS Records. As for Compo Company, that was just for Canada and is the forerunner of Universal Music Group's Canadian operations. You are comparing apples and oranges, Moxy. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks to the CBS Records DAB page, the misdirected links in articles are now all corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Agree, although I am not sure whether I should indeed be named as party in this dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Agree - Times., Peter J. Boyer; Peter J. Boyer Reports On Television For The New York (18 September 1988). "Sony and CBS Records: What a Romance!". The New York Times. p. 34.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Moxy (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Fully agree that mediation is needed. However, I am not involved in the dispute itself, having only acted in an administrative capacity. I have no interest in the actual outcome but will provide information on my admin actions if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Agree, as one of the DRN volunteers involved in the case, but like some of the other third party editors, I have no personal investment in the dispute.--SGCM (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Agree that mediation of the issues is needed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. Agree. Although like Czarkoff I'm not sure my participation is needed in this case. 78.26 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Agree. User:Simon.rashleighSimon Rashleigh 04:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Reject The primary issue as framed is not the issue I am concerned with. I am not interested in an article in the namespace CBS Records (1938-1990). I am only concerned about the namespace CBS Records and whether it should be an article on the business entity that existed until 1991 or a disambiguation page. The 1,300 incoming links are for the business entity as it existed up until 1991. We already know the links are not for the other entities listed. The issue is already framed at Talk:CBS Records with wording that both parties have agreed is proper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) The incarnation of CBS Records Norton is referring to was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment on January 1, 1991. All material involving the CBS Records entity as it existed prior to 1991 belongs in the Sony Music article. CBS Records International was the international arm of Columbia Records which was founded in 1961 and launched in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Can we get you guys to agree on the wording - if someone obtains the process stops in its tracks.Moxy (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Why not use the wording from DRN?--SGCM (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC) From what I understand, the primary issues are the ones brought up by the editor who started this page. Others can comment in the "additional issues" section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not familiar with Medcom procedures, but I've offered a short summary of the dispute, using Wikipedia's policy jargon. Based on my understanding of Medcom, the filing editor initiates writing the primary issues, but the primary issues are decided by all parties of the case (usually on the talk page). If it was only the filing editor, there can be problems of bias.--SGCM (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Could you please explain, why "Additional issues (added by other parties)" section above can't serve for framing the issue the way you would like to put it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Because how the issue is worded influences the outcome, and the issues stated are not the issues I have an interest in. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Wasn't your position that you wanted a dedicated article for pre-Sony CBS records, and that you wanted it located at CBS Records because of the number of incoming links?--SGCM (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), no the issues filed under both sections have the same weight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Beeblebrox and Thumperward (who got involved in the dispute via AN) and me and Czarkoff (who got involved in the dispute via DRN), should be removed as parties from the list. The list should only include parties that were involved in the initial dispute.--SGCM (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, the mediation should be of those invlved in the initial disagreements, not those of us who came in later and offered opinions in attempts to mediate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 5 September 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. If you all agree on what are the issues of this dispute, you may wish to file another request, but at the moment this dispute is too fragmented. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning MalachiMartin

Malachi Martin Request for formal mediation Article Malachi Martin (talk)  Submitted 05 Sep 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute PHILO617 (talk · contribs), filing party Contaldo80 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Malachi Martin (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. Posted a request for editorial assistance on Dispute resolution noticeboard but they suggested we engage in talk which has led to an undo content contest. 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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 # Contaldo80 has made bias criticisms of Malachi Martin in the lead sentence of the article calling him "obsessed with Satanism" and a "conspiracy theorist" Issue 2 # Contaldo80 puts specific and marginal criticisms in the lead sentence which belong in the lower critical sections. Issue 3 # Contaldo80 has reverted my changes and threatened to have me blocked by an administrator without Wikipedia due process and conflict resolution process. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 # The contesting editor has not sourced claims that Martin was "hugely popular" as a broadcaster, and likewise provides no supporting evidence that Martin was a "regular guest" on several tv shows. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. (PHILO617 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)) Agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 6 September 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. Mediators rely on the willingness of the parties to compromise; you guys don't seem to see that compromise is a possibility. Please try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or another appropriate venue. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Golden Dawn (Greece)

Golden Dawn (Greece) Request for formal mediation Article Golden Dawn (Greece) (talk)  Submitted 31 Aug 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk · contribs), filing party Dolescum (talk · contribs) Alexispao (talk · contribs) RJFF (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Golden Dawn (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Golden_Dawn_%28Greece%29#Racism_as_a_political_ideology.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law 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 case talk page. Primary issues Having the word "racism" as a political ideology in the party infobox. Though "racism" can be a product of political policies it is not a political ideology and it's inclusion on this article goes against the form for every other political party on wikipedia. Examples: Nazi Party, National Party (South Africa), neither of which have "racism" in their infoboxes. The other valid ideological tags in the infobox make Golden Dawns ideological leanings clear. Accusations of racism and evidence of racism are not the same as having racism as an ideology in the infobox. If it was, both the Nazi Party and the National Party would have it in their infoboxes. Also, none of the sources that are being used for "racism as a political ideology" for Golden Dawn actually state that the party adheres to racism as a form of political ideology. Thus it appears that it is synthesis WP:Synthesis. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:30, 31 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. Reject. Not all parties responded to the request in under seven days. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Sport in Australia

Sport in Australia Request for formal mediation Article Sport in Australia (talk)  Submitted 06 Oct 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute AusSport (talk · contribs), filing party HiLo48 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Sport in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of user that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. User talk:AusSport, Talk:Sport in Australia 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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 User HiLo48 keep's on posting about Australia at the Commonwealth Games that Australia takes the Commonwealth Games very seriously as a nation because, on one level of national thinking, the games offer the country an opportunity to prove they are better than their mother country, England. This information is Un-sourced and untrue. Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Contrary to the assertions that the material is unsourced, there were multiple sources at the time the user removed it. Other sourced material has been removed by the user, who when challenged with the fact that verifiable information is properly sourced, comes back with variants of "I know this to be true" and "Non-australians should be blocked" or "The Australian constitution says so!" or "This male editor is biased in favour of netball!" or "If you put it back in after I have explained why it shouldn't, you'll be blocked!" This is a competency issue on the part of the original filer. Once the person requesting mediation stops using socks, stops removing verifiable information, stops pushing their football code above others in violation of neutral point of view, then it will be time for mediation. --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 6 October 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. AusSport (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Oh dear, what a waste of your time, my time and electrons in general. This complaint is from a single issue, recently confirmed sockpuppet who routinely writes threatening Edit summaries, and is seemingly verging on incompetent as well. There are several reasons I say this, not least being that he cannot even correctly name the article where my alleged misbehaviour occurred. It's Sport in Australia, not Commonwealth Games. It's sad that he got that wrong, because the ONLY article he has ever posted on since first appearing three days ago is Sport in Australia. Maybe he posted at Commonwealth Games under one of his other aliases, but never as AusSport. I see nothing to defend in my actions. Mediation is irrelevant. Just ban the disruptive sockpuppet forever. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC) To save the Mediation Committee's time, User:AusSport, who made this request, has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. I assume that means this Request for Mediation is now null and void. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 9 October 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 because the filing party has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo Formal mediation case Article Cinco de Mayo (talk)  Submitted 06 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Wikigi (talk · contribs), filing party Mercy11 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Cinco de Mayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Battle of Puebla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Cinco de Mayo#Size of the two armies 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 case talk page. Primary issues On May 5 1862 a battle took place between Mexican and Napoleon's French forces in Puebla, Mexico, called the Battle of Puebla. The mexican defeated a well trained and well equipped French army, this point is historical and unchallenged. The dispute here lays in the actual number of soldiers involved. Each and all sources giving different accounts on that particular point : The Mexican account is that Mexican forces were largely outnumbered, adding extra credit to their feat : from 4,500 to 4,802 Mexicans vs 6,000 to 6,500 French according to Mexican sources. U.S. History Channel even giving the number of 2,000 Mexicans without providing any source, and PBS giving a number of 8,000 for the French (no source either). The French side gives a different account, with 12,000 Mexican soldiers (according to Fondation Napoléon (secondary source), a well known foundation based in Paris, dedicated to First and Second French Empire history, and working on actual documents pertaining to Napoleon III and according to a memoir published only 12 years after the events by General Gustave Léon Niox (primary source), who actually fought this battle). Official Mexican source : La Batalla del Cinco de Mayo de 1862 - National Institute of Historical Studies on the Mexican Revolution, account for 4,802 Mexicans vs 6,000 French. French sources : The Cinco de Mayo and French Imperialism - HICKS Peter, Fondation Napoléon General Gustave Léon Niox, Expédition du Mexique : 1861-1867, Librairie militaire de J. Dumaine, 1874, p. 162 Read online Legitimate sources (above : both French and Mexican) are discarded by Mercy11 as "not reliable sources to begin with", reverting my edits in whatever form I put them (see revert Cinco de Mayo and revert Battle of Puebla), imposing the History Channel as the sole trustable source on the matter and lecturing me about WP rules. I believe we owe to the reader all numbers and their sources. Thank you. - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:04, 6 November 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Wikigi | talk to me | 16:04, 6 November 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. Substantial attempts at prior dispute resolution are a precondition of formal mediation, per our Policy. Please pursue earlier steps of the dispute resolution process. If the first stage of dispute resolution (talk page discussion) results in an impasse, you should try using requests for comments (RFC), third opinions, or the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). 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 [•] 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Mexican-American War

Mexican-American War Formal mediation case Article Mexican-American War (talk)  Submitted 14 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Apteva (talk · contribs), filing party Dicklyon (talk · contribs) Tony1 (talk · contribs) Kotniski (talk · contribs) Noetica (talk · contribs) LtPowers (talk · contribs) Neotarf (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Mexican-American War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Comet Hale-Bopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reno-Tahoe International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted RM,[7], [8], [9], [10] RFC[11] This was the subject of an arbcom motion which basically ruled to figure out what to do, within two months of the end of May, 2011.[12] Unfortunately, the wrong choice was made. 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 case talk page. Primary issues The policy at WP:TITLE is very clear - use common usage. In most cases Wikipedia very clearly follows the most common usage, but in 2009 or so, someone came up with the idea of using endashes to mean the relationship between words, and not use them the way they are found in reliable sources. Hence the idea of spelling Mexican-American War with an endash, even though only about 2% of the rest of the world uses an endash. This was then extended to comets and airports and anywhere else a hyphen occurs in a proper name other than for two proper names such as Julia Luis-Dreyfus. Unfortunately, the naming authority for comets is very clear, only hyphens and spaces may occur. In the case of airports, only hyphens are used. In the case of bridges the naming authority can use any name they wish, but in this case and many other cases the popular name is not the official name, but it is normally a hyphen, not an endash. It is actually black and white simple - if someone is constructing a sentence, the choice of punctuation connotes meaning. If someone is naming their cat or dog, they can choose any punctuation they wish, which the public is free to use or ignore. With regard to named notable items, the only ones which Wikipedia has articles on, Wikipedia is constrained solely to use the names the public has given them, not ones that Wikipedia chooses to make up, like using Comet Hale(endash)Bopp, when the actual name is comet Hale(hyphen)Bopp. By a 50:1 ratio, the name given by the public is Mexican-American War, with a hyphen, not an endash. Wikipedia should therefore also use Mexican-American War, with a hyphen. Not doing so led to the absurdity of adding the sentence at WP:MOS, "MoS applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Wikipedia:Article titles does not determine punctuation.)". This clearly was put there in recognition of the conflict between policy and guideline, but the better solution is to change the guideline, not pretend that a guideline is more important than a policy. This entire conflict goes away by simply using a hyphen in Mexican-American War, and along with it thousands of hours of discussion also go away. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Apteva (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC) No, this can't work. Mediation about an actual dispute might be OK, but I have not interacted with Apteva on 3 of those 4 articles, and his disputes with the MOS, outlined in his statement above, are not really with me. I just follow the guideline, which was worked out by dozens of editors. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I would welcome the input of a mediator, but I feel this is inherently the wrong forum for this dispute. Apteva has found pretty much zero traction for his/her views on punctuation in article titles, and appears to now be forum shopping for a way to impose those views on the encyclopedia. If Apteva's contentions were supported by consensus, we wouldn't have a dispute to mediate. Powers T 03:07, 15 November 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. The interaction between stylistic guidelines (like the Manual of Style) and the wide latitude given to editors to decide the title of an article is quite complex, and would in some instances be well suited to the mediation process. We can certainly help a group of disputants apply policy and guidelines, as well as reasoned argument and common sense, to the question of what to name a particular article. However, in this particular case I cannot agree with the requester that mediation is suited to this dispute. Little or no prior dispute resolution has been attempted in relation to the naming of any of these articles, and the articles themselves are entirely unrelated. This compels me to conclude that the actual motivation for disputing these titles is not any concern with the editorial validity of one title over another, but rather a more personal objection to the influence of stylistic guidelines over Wikipedia article naming. Such an objection is better resolved with a community-wide discussion about the extent to which stylistic guidelines should be enforced. Mediating a dispute that is only superficially motivated by the editorial validity of one title over another strikes me as a fruitless and false exercise (it would be "jumping through hoops", when we would all know the real reason for the mediation is a dislike by one or more disputants of the prevalence of the MoS). My decision is therefore to decline this request, and to recommend that any valid objection to specific article titles be pursued simply though editorial discussion (which has not actually been attempted here)—and any more general concerns about the influence of guidelines like MoS be taken up with the wider community. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Intercontinental Cup (football)

Intercontinental Cup (football) Request for formal mediation Article Intercontinental Cup (football) (talk)  Submitted 22 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Soccer historian (talk · contribs), filing party Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Intercontinental Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted [13] 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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Though an official competition at two-continental level (UEFA-Europe and Conmebol- South American) , the Intercontinental Cup has never been a official competition at world level (since it is not a FIFA-official competition, as FIFA is the sole official soccer authority at world level). And FIFA has made clear that the first official Club World Champion was Corinthians in 2000, stating that Intercontinental Club competitions in years gone by (including then the Intercontinental Cup, since it was created in 1960, and 1960 is a "year gone by" relative to 2000) were not official FIFA events. (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=660747/index.html FIFA admits officially, in its official documents ((http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) that the Intercontinental Cup was a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup, but rational logic says that not necessarily a predecessor to a specific something is the same worth of that specific something; what is more, FIFA has never made any official statement equalising the worth of the Intercontinental Cup (henceforth called IC) and the worth of the FIFA Club World Cup (henceforth called CWC) as being equal worth ((http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf). As far as non-official statements are concerned, FIFA has on its web-site many texts (which are NOT listed on the FIFA site as being FIFA official documents: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html), on which FIFA says that the IC was a world title; however, even on this non-official texts, FIFA is very dubious, often referring to the IC as a world title that was "symbolic", "not the true one" ((http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html). Examples of these texts: in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the TRUE world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (referring to the IC) and "the TRUE world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may TRULY be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup TRULY indicates the world club champion. (http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html) And it must be pointed out that these texts are produced by FIFA's news centre (http://www.fifa.com/newscentre/index.html), which produces texts about a variety of subjects (footballers, coaches, etc), NOT being listed as official FIFA documents (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html), all this making clear that such texts are NOT the official FIFA views. Following logic: 1- FIFA is the sole soccer official authority at world level; 2- FIFA has never officialised the IC as a World-value title (note: FIFA officially declares the IC as "a predecessor to the FIFA CWC", but has never officially declared that both have the same value); 3- even on its non-official texts, FIFA is dubious about the "world value" of the IC , always calling it "symbolic", "not the true one", and etc; 4- therefore, the supposed "world value" of the IC is not a FIFA officially enforced fact; 5- not being an officially enforced fact by the sole official authority at the matter (FIFA), the "world value" of the IC is consequently a matter of personal opinion; 6- as a matter of personal opinion, the "world value" of the IC must not be stated in the article, or at least it must be stated in the article with the due explanations that it is a matter of opinion, but not an undisputed fact. The problem is that Mr Dante the Peruvian has taken control over the article in order to enforce his personal view that the Intercontinental Cup is a "world value" cup. According to Mr Dante: 1- Mr Dante said: "the IC had the value of World Title even without FIFA-officialisation because FIFA was statutely prohibited from getting involved in Club competitions". MY ANSWER: in the Discussion Page, I have presented many links from the archive of Barcelona sport Newspaper El Mundo Deportivo showing that as early as 1962 FIFA has tried to regulate the IC. Mr Dante dismissed them. 2- Mr Dante said: “Intercontinental Cup does not need FIFA officialization because it was made by UEFA and CONMEBOL, and at least one of them (Conmebol) sees it as official and sees it as a world title”. MY ANSWER: it happens that Conmebol does NOT have jurisdiction over football at WORLD level, only at South American level,as UEFA does NOT have jurisdiction over football at world level, only at European level, so they are not legitimate to consecrate anything at World Level. If I agreed with Mr Dante’s argumentation, I might for instance say that the Rio Cup 1951-1952 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Brazilian FA and the Brazilian FA saw it as a world title”; or, for another instance, I might for instance say that the Pequeña Copa del Mundo 1952-1957 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Venezuelan FA and the Venezuelan FA saw it as a world title”. This proves how stupid are Mr Dantes’s argumentations. Clearly, institutions as UEFA and COnmebol do not have football jurisdiction at world level - ONLY FIFA HAS IT. 3- Mr Dante said: "FIFA was unable to create a Club World Cup until 2000, and during this period the IC was the highest soccer club tournament in the world, therefore the IC had the value of a World Club title". MY ANSWER: This is an absurd argumentation by Mr Dante. With this same rationale, the English FA Cup should also be treated as a World Club Title, because when it was created, football only existed in Britain and therefore the English FA Cup consequently was back then the "the highest soccer club tournament in the world". 4- Mr Dante said: "Because by then the only national associations affiliated to FIFA that had direct fit to the FIFA World Cup were South American and European teams while the rest of the semiprofessional teams of the other FIFA members had to play an elimination phase against a third European or South American team or between themselves. In addition, in 1960 the only confederations competitions were the European Champions' Cup and the Copa Libertadores." MY ANSWER: According to this rationale of Mr Dante, the European Champions Cups 1955/1956, 1956/1957, 1957/1958 and 1958/1959 should also be considered to have the worth of a "world title", as it was the sole continental club competition in these years.... according to this rationale, the English FA Cup should be considered to have the value of a Club World Cup because, when it was created, soccer did not exist outside England... What is more: if the Intercontinental Cup was the same value of a Club World Cup BECAUSE in 1960 the only confederations with competitions were Europe and South America, as Dante says, therefore the very same rationale would say that the Intercontinental Cup should STOP being considered a Club-World-value cup once the other continents (Africa, Asia, Concacaf) created their continental competitions in the 1960's. Sure, the chances of Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" to reach to the FIFA World Cup were restricted in comparison to those of Europeans and South Americans. Anyway, small and restricted as the chances were, the fact is that Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" ALWAYS HAD A CHANCE to reach the FIFA World Cup, while they NEVER HAD ANY CHANCE to reach the Intercontinental Cup. And they NEVER had such chance EVEN when they beat the South Americans on the pitch (Interamerican Cups 1977 and 1980 and Libertadores 2001). In April 1978, Mexican club America beat Boca Juniors for Interamerican Cup and, based on that fact, America requested to participate in the Intercontinental Cup, and was denied by Conmebol, because America was a Mexican club not a South American club - this shows that the purpose of the IC was to indicate the best of Europe+South America, not the best of the world. And before the 2001 Libertadores Cup final between Mexican club Cruz Azul and Argentinian club Boca Juniors, Conmebol announced that Cruz Azul would NOT be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat Boca Juniors in the Libertadores Final. In his statement in the Discussion page, Mr Dante "decided" (from whichever "authority" he may think he has...) that the Interamerican Cup was "neglectable" and "meant nothing"- but please notice that, not only through Interamerican Cup but also through Libertadores Cup (Libertadores Cup: the very same foundation of the creation of the Intercontinental Cup), the Mexicans would not be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat the South Americans on the picth. The reason: the Intercontinental Cup was a European/South American title, NOT a world title. 5 - Mr Dante said: "it is clear without need to discussion that the IC was WORLDWIDE regarded as a World Title". Also, Mr Dante cited that the BBC also proved his views. MY ANSWER: I brought (to the Discussion Page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup) TONS of worldwide respctable and reliable sources (UEFA, CONMEBOL, Toyota, Japanese Football Association, newspapers from Mexico, Spain, Korea, Costa Rica, clubs such as Corinthians, Internacional Porto Alegre, Barcelona) that do NOT refer to the IC as having "world-value". As Mr Dante claimed BBC as a reliable source, I also showed BBC's Tim Vickery articles posted on both BBC and UEFA sites , stating clearly: 1- the South Americans saw the IC much more seriously and importantly that the Europeans saw it; 2 - to the Europeans, the IC was (from the 1980's on) a "glorified exhibition match to show football to the Japanese" and "a glorified friendly"; 3- the Europeans take the FIFA CWC more seriously than they took the IC. Point 3 belies clearly Mr Dante's statement that the IC and the CWC have the same value and status. Funny, when I showed this, Mr Dante dismissed these sources as being "blogs", not taking into account that these sources (BBC and UEFA) were called upon by him himself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2008/12/one_of_my_regrets_is.html ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/post.html ; http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/news/kind=1/newsid=276659.html ; (http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/news/kind=1/newsid=276659.html 6- Beyond insisting on trying to equalise the importance and value of the IC to those of the official club world title (the FIFA FWC), Mr Dante also said that the IC was "the most important tournament at international level in which any club could participate". My ANSWER: UEFA itself regards the UEFA Champions Cup as the most important club trophy in the world (just to remember: UEFA was a source once called upon by Mr Dante Himself and UEFA was the creator and one of the promoters of the Intercontinental Cup): http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/index.html The 1970's record of the IC also shows clearly that it was not that important for Germans, Dutchmen and Englishmen. In the 1970's, the European Champions (in this decade, they were invariably German, Dutch or English) declined the IC no fewer than 7 AMONG 10 YEARS. Definitely, the IC was not so importantly seen as Mr Dante believes. - ALL PRESENTED, I humbly and respectfully request that the statement "The competition was considered until the creation of its successor, the FIFA Club World Cup,the most important tournament at international level in which any club could participate, for that reason all the winner teams were recognised de facto as world club champions" be erased from the Intercontinental Cup article, for it represents a personal view of Mr Dante (not only his, it is true, of many people, but even so a personal opinion on which many people disagree) , being neither an officially enforced fact nor a worlwide consensual opinion. Issue 2 PS: it is not the central theme of my mediation request, but Mr Dante also insists that the Lipton , Pequeña Copa del Mundo , Rio and Intercontinental Cups were all of them created with the purpose of being "club world competitions", but he presents no source to that affirmation. Also on the Discussion page of the Intercontinental Cup article, there are information showing that the Pequeña Copa del Mundo had an impact commensurate to that of "club world cup" NOWHERE - neither in Venezuela (host country) nor in Brazil and Spain (whose clubs won 5 out of the 6 editions of the original series of this competition). My turn: This "controversy" is not for officiality of the competition called Intercontinental Cup, but is for the value of the title "world champion club" traditionally assigned to the winning team of the tournament from 1960 to 2004. To clarify this, note that: 1. The Intercontinental Cup was an official tournament being organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL and included in the club/head coach/footballer sporting record (cf. e.g. UEFA club competition, p. 101). Not being organised by FIFA, that governing body has no legal authority to "formalize", "ignore", "reform" or "delete" this contest. 2) In 1960, FIFA reject organise the Intercontinental Cup—as happened in 1955 with the European Champions' Cup—due then-current article 38 of its own statute whereby allowed it to organise only tournaments between "representative teams of national associations", ie among its own members (cf. 50 years of the European Cup, p.7). It is false, therefore, to say that FIFA reject organise it "to oppose the competition". 3) Having been jointly organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL (ie is an UEFA and CONMEBOL club competition), FIFA was—and continues to be—banned from interfering in the tournament due the principle of sovereignty according to art. 20 of FIFA statutes (cf. FIFA statutes (2012), p. 17; UEFA and CONMEBOL statutes) 4) When Manchester United won the Intercontinental Cup in 1999 and was proclamed as "world club champion" FIFA never issued a statement rejected that achievement in favor of the Club World Cup pilot edition (contest two months later) although this was a symbolic title conferred de facto because was not formally assigned by the Intercontinental Cup committee as both UEFA and CONMEBOL are continental bodies (while the title assigned to FIFA club competition winner is confered de jure). 5) According FIFA: "The idea of identifying the best club side in the world by staging a world championship was first raised at the end of the 1950s. In the post-war era, sport was once again helping to heal wounds and bring about reconciliation among people. Back then, the world of football was dominated by Europe and South America, whose teams thrilled fans with their contrasting styles of play. Brazil had won the FIFA World Cup™ in Europe for the first and so far only time in 1958. In Europe and South America, two continental club championships had been created: the European Champion Clubs’ Cup and the Copa Libertadores. And so it was only natural that the “World Championship” be contested by the winners of these two competitions. Santiago Bernabéu, Real Madrid’s legendary president, was the man who proposed that the premier club be decided by a match held over two legs. In the ensuing period, the competition experienced a number of ups of down. It appeared to be coming to an end in the mid-1970s until it was “rescued” by Japan, who breathed new life into the encounter in 1980 by turning it into a single game on neutral territory, originally in Tokyo and more recently in Yokohama. As the Toyota Cup, the contest regained the respect of the international football family. But football has come a long way since the intercontinental challenge was first launched. All the confederations stage a continental club championship, but for many years they were denied access to a top event at world level. For FIFA, who in 1954 had declined to take part in the organisation of a cup competition for European clubs, this was reason enough to get involved at club level by staging the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship TOYOTA Cup in Brazil in 2000" — FIFA Activity Report 2005, Official Publication of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, p.62 That citation, and this list redacted by FIFA, clearly reveals that the world's governing body recognises the symbolic title of "club world champion" assigned de facto to all the Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 despite the tournament was formally an UEFA/CONMEBOL club competition regardless of level of football played in the Eastern South America and Western Europe is more developed compared to the other continents, so it is encyclopaedically valid describe the Intercontinental Cup winner as "world champion".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:33, 28 November 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Soccer historian (talk) 15:40, 22 November 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. Though the Chairman of the committee or his delegate will decide whether or not to accept this case, one of the prerequisites for mediation is that dispute resolution through third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard be tried first. By looking through the contribution histories of both editors, I can find no such attempt. Would the filing editor please identify, in the "Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted" section above, where such prior dispute resolution has been attempted? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC) All evidence presented by Dantetheperuvian in my first post in this page (especially the last two) notes that FIFA defines the Intercontinental Cup as the only precursor of the current Club World Cup and recognises that the competition was created to define the best team in the world from 1960 until its last edition in 2004, for which even made ​​a list in which it explicitly states ((...) we feature the 26 clubs (as of 2005) that have been named world champions"). Nobody here is saying that the Intercontinental Cup is "FIFA tournament" being an official UEFA/CONMEBOL competition, but all winning teams were awarded with the symbolic title of "club world champions" and FIFA recognise that. In addition, its clear in the article that the title was conferred de facto because the organiser could not grant it de jure. Only for the former IP (for this discussion "soccer historian" and tomorrow other IP), the tournament was "friendly" based on the version of a Spanish newspaper.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Reject. Failure to meet prior dispute resolution prerequisite. Please utilize a third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a request for comments before returning to the Mediation Committee. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Italianization

Italianization Request for formal mediation Article Italianization (talk)  Submitted 26 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute DancingPhilosopher (talk · contribs), filing party Silvio1973 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Italianization (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 Primary issues Being threatened with a block at the Talk page here. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. DancingPhilosopher my talk 15:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 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. Though the Chairman of the committee or his delegate will decide whether or not to accept this case, one of the prerequisites for mediation is that dispute resolution through third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard be tried first. By looking through the contribution histories of both editors, I can find no such attempt. Would the filing editor please identify, in the "Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted" section above, where such prior dispute resolution has been attempted? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I agree, there is large room for discussion before getting to the necessity of a formal mediation. I believe the edits of user DancingPhilosopher have their room in the article Italianization as long properly sourced and arranged in the text according to relevant guidelines. Concerning the issue of being threatened, I wrote: you should revise your wording or you won't find me anymore ready to discuss with you. Indeed you will have your account blocked.. Qualifying such advice of threat is arguable, to say the less. However, I suggest to go trough the discussion on the Talk page to see who was the one not using the right wording. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Reject. Failure to meet prior dispute resolution prerequisite. Please utilize a third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a request for comments before returning to the Mediation Committee. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Lie To Me (Jonny Lang)

Lie to Me (album) Request for formal mediation Article Lie to Me (album) (talk)  Submitted 26 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute mdp0007 (talk · contribs), filing party Callanecc (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Wikipedia Article: Lie to Me(album) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Attempt 1) I was contacted by Callanecc,whom stated that he felt that I had a conflict of interest.I then sent Callanecc an e-mail asking why this user felt that I had a (conflict of interest) in my edit, where I added: Mark Pagliaro - Jonny Lang's guitar tech on 1997 Lie to Me Tour to the list of Personnel on the Wikipedia Article: Lie to Me(album) I did not receive from this user what I thought to be any valid reason for that statement to me,as I was,Jonny Lang's guitar tech on the Lie To Me Tour in 1997 and have the documents to prove it. I also told this user I would be more than willing to provide them to anyone who requested them' to do so,by my hotmail e-mail address or by phone contact (fax) I am only trying to find why this user has a issue with my edit? I am now retired from the music industry and have nothing to gain from this edit.I thought that I was just adding some fact's,as I thought that this is a site for learning and knowledge???? or am I mistaken?? mdp0007Mark Pagliaro 22:12, 26 November 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 Wikipedia Article: Lie to Me(album) [[case talk page:{{mdp0007}} Primary issues Issue 1 Callanecc is accusing me of conflict of interest in my edit that say's I was Jonny Lang's guitar tech on his 1997 Lie To Me Tour. I can document this with a letter that I have in my possession from Jonny Lang's management in 1997(Blue Sky Artist Management)that clearly states that: I was his guitar tech for the 1997 Lie To Me Tour. mdp0007Mark Pagliaro 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Issue 2 I will gladly supply this document if needed. mdp0007Mark Pagliaro 14:23, 26 November 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree.mdp0007 Mark Pagliaro 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Agree - see talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 26 November 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. Though the Chairman of the committee or his delegate will decide whether or not to accept this case, one of the prerequisites for mediation is that dispute resolution through third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard be tried first. By looking through the contribution histories of both editors, I can find no such attempt. Would the filing editor please identify, in the "Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted" section above, where such prior dispute resolution has been attempted? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Reject. Failure to meet prior dispute resolution prerequisite. Please utilize a third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a request for comments before returning to the Mediation Committee. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Jerusalem

Jerusalem Formal mediation case Article Jerusalem (talk)  Submitted 12 Nov 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Dailycare (talk · contribs), filing party brewcrewer (talk · contribs) AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) Asad112 (talk · contribs) Shrike (talk · contribs) Cptnono (talk · contribs) Tritomex (talk · contribs) Nishidani (talk · contribs) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) Dlv999 (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) Hertz1888 (talk · contribs) MeUser42 (talk · contribs) Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs) Ravpapa (talk · contribs) ZScarpia (talk · contribs) tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) FormerIP (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk page discussion. The archives of the talkpage are in fact full of discussions relating to just this issue. RFC of 2011. RFC of 2010. RFC of 2009. Issues to be mediated The article presently states in the first sentence of the lead that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such (...)". The issue is whether this complies with neutrality, taking into account that there are a large number of sources that present the notion that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" as just a claim. An example of such a source is here: "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status". In the UN General Assembly, most of the world's states have subscribed to resolutions describing Israel's attempts to make it its capital as "null and void". It has been proposed that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" would be edited along the lines of e.g. Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, or Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government. Additional issues (added by other parties) If the article introduction is to be changed to make it sound like it is just the "claimed capital of Israel" rather than the actual capital of Israel (just not internationally recognised) then other factors must be taken into account. At present the infobox on Jerusalem shows the city's emblem, flag and states its mayor. If we go down the path of trying to pretend Jerusalem is not actually a city in Israel which is its capital, then these other things will have to be changed too. Proposals to change the first sentence could have radical implications for many parts of the article, and other articles on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Additional issue 2 I would like to point out that the opening sentence as a whole was the reason for the dispute, namely Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such This sentence was already balanced, although I do not believe that the lack of international recognition, which is mentioned again in the text should go in the lead also. Many RS do not point this out [14], CIA factbook [15] Country Watch [16] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [17] academic papers [18] or [19] So the dispute was not based just on the first part of the sentence, but on the whole sentence. The main question was if the current wording though not internationally recognized as such was already balanced. In my opinion the current wording, due to the abstract and absolute meaning of the generalized term "international community" could be seen as POV against Israel. I pointed out that any eventual change from this at least already balanced version would lead to further changes. Namely the seize of Jerusalem, its neighborhoods, are all determined by same Israeli Jerusalem law (through which Jerusalem was declared united capital of Israel in 1980) If we go back to the legal status of Jerusalem during British mandatory Palestine 1917-1948 (as Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967) we would have to downsize Jerusalem to less than 30% of its current territory and population. In this case it would be necessary, as we can not just pick out what we like and leave inside what we do not like. So to summarize the question is if the wording Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such is already balanced for the lead--Tritomex (talk) 10:27, 13 November 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC) No. I am happy for the process to continue without me, though.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Dlv999 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree--Tritomex (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Agree.     ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Formerip (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC) OK. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. Ankh.Morpork 12:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Agree. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC) I have nothing against the process but probably will not contribute much because lack of time--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 24 November 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 for Cptnono: If you are not involved in the mediation process, it is possible that the other editors may reach a resolution that you do not fully agree with. Would you still be willing to abide by the results of a mediation on this issue even if this were the case? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC) About Nableezy: Nableezy (talk · contribs) was initially listed as a involved user. He removed himself from the list without comment, but was then added back in by Cptnono. Nableezy then removed himself again, with a comment on the talk page that, "I barely got involved in the last, I dont know, three times this has come up over the years. So I think I am actually non-essential and would appreciate being left out of this." The Committee will consider whether or not he is an essential party to the mediation in deciding whether or not to accept the request, so repeated listings and removals from this page are not needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Reject. Due to both an insufficient acceptance of parties to the mediation and underlying conduct issues, this request will be declined. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Indigenous peoples

Indigenous peoples Formal mediation case Article Indigenous peoples (talk)  Submitted 16 Dec 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Crock81 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Indgenous peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Clean-up_notice http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Indigenous_peoples_article 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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Crock81 has been adding unsourced content, one paragraph with respect to I've specifically addressed to him directly on the Indigenous peoples Talk page under his "Clean-up notice" section. This dispute arises on the tail end of an ongoing dispute on the List of indigenous peoples page (see the Talk page, in particular), and it appears to me that Crock81 has decided to turn his attention to the Indigenous peoples article in the hope of meeting less resistance, perhaps. He has stated explicitly under the aforementioned "Clean-up notice" that he intends to edit in a manner such as to emphasize a POV that peoples other than "discriminated peoples" are also defined as indigenous peoples. On the List of indigenous peoples article, the dispute related to the contentious status of indigeneity of Palestinians and Jews/Israelis/Israelites. In relation to that, the following comment by Crock81 on the corresponding Talk page is somewhat indicative of his POV disposition. 'Tritomex,while Wikipedia may not recognise religious texts as reliable sources, because the Torah is a central source of identity of the Yisrael, to deny it means to they identity to the cultural heritage and entire of the entire ethnicity. This is NOT within the providence of an encyclopaedia. It is the culture's own choice what it regards as a 'reliable source' of it's own practice, given the source was from God. You may be an atheist, but denying the use of the text to this culture IMPOSES ATHEISM, which is actually a denial of human rights according to the UN universal charter. Based on this I will seek to take administrative action against you and any other editor that takes the same line of 'argument' in disrupting editing Crock81 (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Please refer to the discussion on EdJohnston's Talk page for other details, as that will save the need to repeat everything here. NOTE - It seems to me that an Issue 1' ought to deal with a single issue, and conflating the editing of a paragraph on the article Indigenous peoples, SUBJECT OF THIS MEDIATION REQUEST, with that of the List of indigenous peoples is not helpful. I will only address one issue at a time. Response - This is not an issue. I had requested Ubikwit address the specific problems of the selected paragraph in the Indigenous peoples in the talk page set out in point fashion, namely: unsourced WP:OR redundant require sources and how it is "poorly written" This was initially met with silence. Later, I deciphered a claim of "synthetic" (sic.) editing, addressed this, and edited the paragraph in question. (see talk page/diff) Issue 2 The most recent aspect of his prolific number of edits over the past 24 hours or so that I've noticed is that he re-ordered the list of international organizations related to indigenous peoples in a manner he describes as "chronological". Aside from the fact that it is not clear on what sources he is basing the purported chronology, it would seem that chronology would not have priority over current importance in terms of the role played by each organization in advocating for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Obviously the United Nations is the preeminent organization in the world acting in that capacity, and he moved the UN to the bottom of the list. Response - I edit when I can, and I try to get as much done in the time available to me. It is not anyone's prerogative to tell me when and how much editing to do. The only fact that is unclear, is why Ubikwit failed to ask this question on the talk page before reverting my edit? Providing reliable sources is not necessary when the wikilinks to the articles provide all the information required in the Wikipedia entry on each of the organisations. ILO was established in 1919. The World Bank was established in 1944, and in no small way its job was, just like that of the ILO's due to the influence of the trade unions, of "reduction of poverty". "In 1946, the ILO became the first specialized agency of the newly-formed United Nations." Given that poverty is one of many issues that face the indigenous peoples, and the degree to which the ILO helped to change perception of the indigenous peoples during the 1920s and 30s from that of their identification of 'savages' to those deserving equality in human rights, the examination of international legal conceptualisation of indigenous rights seems to me warrants a historiographic treatment, or as Wikipedia puts it, "change over time", hence chronological. Issue 3 Crock81 would appear not to be a native speaker of English, and though I have stated this on EdJohnston's Talk page, I think it is worth briefly repeating here, that in order to prevent language proficiency from further impacting content related issues, Crock81 should be advised to have reliable sources prepared in advance to support any edits. It also would be helpful if he were told to propose in advance on the Talk page such a major restructuring like re-ordering the list of international organizations in a manner such as to place the preeminent organization at the bottom of the list. Response - There is no requirement by the English Wikipedia editors to be native English users. However, WP:RS is unrelated to WP:STYLE. Ubikwit was invited to identify problems with my English usage (see above) but chose not to do so. An alternative would have been to call on someone neutral to comment on the talk page without recourse to mediation. There are a large number of wikipedians that do just that without even prompting. Reverting editing is not IMHO a solution to supposedly bad grammar within the scope of the existing process I don't consider change of text order in one section of the article to be "major restructuring". Major restructuring would be if I proposed that the Abolitionism be moved as a subsection within History, and distributed within the various existing sections to reflect different cultural and historic attitudes to slavery because it changes how the article reads (keeping the Wikipedia user in mind). Changing several blocks of text within the same section is not going to change the reader's perception, but will offer a better perception of change over time in legal impacts on indigenous causes. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Ubikwit appears to have a problem with using the talk page. He/she thinks its a place to bully editors through threats of edit wars and making empty claims. It wastes my time, and others. This is my second experince with such behaviour by Ubikwit, but I tried to stay out of the earlier edit war which resulted in this Ubikwit enjoys dispute participation, and invents these as it seems to serve his/her self-esteem to be noticed. I have no interest in participating in this process. There is no dispute 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Ubikwit (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit Disagree. Crock81 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 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) 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning AR-15

AR-15 Formal mediation case Article AR-15 (talk)  Submitted 19 Dec 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Kaneandhicks (talk · contribs) Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute AR-15 (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 in Talk page seems to have been stifled. 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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1 Edit War Issue 2 NPOV 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. --Saukkomies talk 01:24, 19 December 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 am a member of the Mediation Committee and have a few questions and requests: The prerequisites for a request here require some prior attempt at dispute resolution beyond mere discussion on the talk page. Would the filing editor please provide a link to that prior attempt through Third Opinion or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? An attempt elsewhere or in some other form might also serve, depending on what it is, but mere talk page discussion is not enough. A glance at the article talk page and article edit history suggests that there are a number of other registered and IP editors involved in the dispute and talk page discussion. If the prior-DR problem can be overcome, those additional editors must be listed as parties to this case and be given a chance to be notified and weigh in. While we encourage succinctness in the initial statement of the issues, these could stand to be expanded somewhat so that other editors can be more certain as to what it is that they are agreeing or disagreeing to mediate. Again, there's no point in that unless the prior-DR problem can be overcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC) TransporterMan: I do not believe that there has been an extensive attempt at prior resolution, so you can probably disregard this request. I was hoping to avoid what appears to be a huge argument by calling attention to this sensitive subject early on. I'm also not sure whether the IP editors interested in the gun articles would be completely nonbiased in regard to this issue. But that's just how it will go. Thanks for your attention. --Saukkomies talk 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Decline. The filing party has been blocked for edit warring, which is prima facie evidence that they are not pursuing mediation in good faith. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Turkish people

Turkish people Request for formal mediation Article Turkish people (talk)  Submitted 21 Dec 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Cavann (talk · contribs), filing party ‎Mttll (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Turkish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk page: Talk:Turkish_people#The_Infobox Noticeboard: [20] RFC: [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 case talk page. Primary issues Issue 1: This is a short dispute. We are trying to decide what it should say on the "Related ethnic groups" part of the infobox of Turkish people. My suggestion is here [22] ("Related ethnic groups" part), whereas Mttll suggests this [23]. Based on evidence, (here's the abstract of a study [24]) Turkish people are primarily descended from Anatolians. I think this should be reflected in the infobox, because the infobox should accurately describe the situation. Mttll, on the other hand, suggests linguistic ties should take primacy. This is a false dichotomy, because both can be specified in the infobox, or entire section should be left blank, so that the readers can find a more detailed explanation in the text of the article. Cavann (talk) 04:43, 21 December 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. Cavann (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Mttll (talk) 20:42, 21 December 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. There remains ongoing discussion at the RfC on this issue. If the RfC fails to come to a consensus after it concludes, you are free to file a new request for mediation. Don't give up on other avenues for resolution first. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Jerusalem 2

Jerusalem 2 Request for formal mediation Article Jerusalem (talk)  Submitted 29 Dec 2012 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute FormerIP (talk · contribs), filing party Alertboatbanking (talk · contribs) ZScarpia (talk · contribs) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) Dailycare (talk · contribs) Ravpapa (talk · contribs) Nishidani (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) ClaudeReigns (talk · contribs) Ubikwit (talk · contribs) PerDaniel (talk · contribs) Mor2 (talk · contribs) Pluto2012 (talk · contribs) Nableezy (talk · contribs) tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) Frederico1234 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Recent ArbCom case Rejected mediation request RfC last year RfC the year before that RfC the year before that See also article talkpage archives, passim. Issues to be mediated A recent ArbCom motion requesting a binding community discussion regarding the intro to Jerusalem. It is proposed that mediation could support the formulation of an RfC question. There are a number of emerging differences of opinion as to how the question should be phrased (see article talkpage). I've listed editors currently active on the talkpage as parties. Other editors with a historic involvement should feel free to add themselves. NOTE: A recent request for mediation was declined because a small number of parties did not respond. Given that this new request in pursuant to an ArbCom motion, it is proposed that ArbCom should be consulted before the request is declined, although the motion does not make any reference to meditation. Primary issues How should an RfC question be phrased regarding the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the Jerusalem article? Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. Agree. And LOL at number 10. Alertboatbanking (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Agree. Formerip (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Disagree. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) A discussion on how to have a discussion. I wont participate, but sure, agree. nableezy - 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Agree.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit Agree. Frederico1234 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Agree with Nableezy. This is not, in my opinion, an appropriate topic for mediation. Should the mediation committee nonetheless decide to accept it, I agree to participate. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Agree as per Nableezy and Ravpapa, though, given my age, I can't guarantee that I'll participate to the end, unless the Mediation Committee can come up with an email technology that will function like an ouija board, and allow me to channel, eventually, posthumous thoughts through to my dead handle.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Agree. --Dailycare (talk) 10:50, 30 December 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. In light of the comments of the "Support" voting Arbitrators at the Arbitration Committee (the complete record of which is archived here) and the content of the adopted motion: The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. it seems pretty clear to me that this case is not within the purview or jurisdiction of the Mediation Committee. This request ought to be quickly and summarily refused for that reason, so that it may move forward in a proper venue without uncertainty about whether we will do it or not. I recommend refusal. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Supplement: I failed to specifically address the use of mediation to formulate the RFC question. I believe that question to be part of what the three closers (to be appointed by the Arbitration Committee (?)) are to work upon. (Even if it is not, then it would be premature to raise it here. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion or prior dispute resolution on that question.) If the parties to the dispute cannot come to an agreement on that issue, my suggestion to the parties would be to make a new motion to ArbCom to either define the question itself or to appoint the three closers to do so. — TM 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Comment. Indeed, I don't know why the issue for the RfC isn't just: "(1) What will be included in the article Jerusalem, and (2) in the lead section, how should Jerusalem be described within the current, contested geopolitical reality." -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Rejected - MEDCOM's Preconditions for Mediation require "No related dispute resolution proceedings are open in other Wikipedia forums." - given the pending motion on the ARBCOM case and what appears to be a consensus for that process it would be inappropriate for the case to be mediated at this time. If that falls through this case may be resubmitted. For the Mediation Committee --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Ghost in the Shell

Ghost in the Shell Formal mediation case Article Ghost in the Shell (talk)  Submitted 07 Jan 2013 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Users involved in dispute Lucia Black (talk · contribs), filing party ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ghost in the Shell (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted Third Party: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Issues with Ghost in the Shell(EMERGENCY) 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 case talk page. Primary issues User ChrisGualtieri believes the article should be about the entire series regardless of the article being over redundant ad wants to use WP:IAR but provide for the reason being that a main article covering all three is necessary and have the broadest scope for easy access. I (Lucia Black) believe the article should hold the original media (manga series) and mention the relavent media and its spinoffs. I dont believe its necessary due to them already having their own articles. Also for various other reasons too long to mention. With the setting holding information on each individual continuity (Example: World War III and IV mentioned however were never brought to light in the manga series nor film series) it shows how innacurate the article is. However currently being accused of Fancruft for it. 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 case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed. AgreeLucia Black (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 'Disagree ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (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. Per the Preconditions for Mediation, the "parties must have first attempted a less-formal dispute resolution method, such as third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard". I cannot find any record of prior dispute resolution. (I do see that a RFC was filed but speedily closed as being inappropriate in connection with a GA review, but this dispute has apparently moved on from just being about the GA review.) I recommend, as a member of the Mediation Committee, that this request be withdrawn by the filing party or, failing that, be refused as premature and that a dispute resolution case be filed at 3O, DRN, or RFC, as may be appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 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. If the first stage of dispute resolution (talk page discussion) results in an impasse, you should try using requests for comments (RFC), third opinions, or the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). 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 [•] 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)