Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-11 Maitreya Project

Who are the involved parties?
Johnfos

Simmonstony


 * Note: User:David Woodward seems to be tangentially involved here as well. - User:Revolving Bugbear 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, i am. David Woodward 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry, this is out of posting order, but i got confused, i seem to be involved anonymously now as well - User:David Woodward

technically, to be honest, i'd have to argue the possibility of the emptiness of the concept that the Lord Maitreya Buddha is also involved in some respect (or possibly respect s ), from some points of view; although he resides (still imho, no offence to Share International's point of view, not Brick Lane, but) in the  Heaven which is reachable through meditation rather than mediation, so i'm not sure why i brought this up in the first case, with respect (although not NPOV, sorry about that) David Woodward (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
1) Johnfos feels that the article is not NPOV and Simmonstony disagrees


 * David Woodward feels that the article is not NPOV

2) Johnfos feels that the article is requires further citations and Simmonstony disagrees

3) Simmonstony has stated his case and none of his questions or points have been answered by Johnfos


 * David Woodward feels that Johnfos has adequately answered Simmonstony's questions and points

4) Johnfos however, agrees to mediation to avoid an edit war, as we have been adding and removing POV and Citation tags like its a production line.


 * David Woodward stepped away from editing the article (31 October 2007) as requested by Johnfos in order to avoid an edit war & agrees to mediation

5) David Woodward feels that since 08:16, 19 September 2007 Simmonstony & an anon editor have consistently moved the article away from NPOV, including multiple reverts, multiple removal of NPOV tags & removal of Advertising tag at 10:10, 12 November 2007.

What would you like to change about that?
1) Simmonstony would like Johnfos to state clearly what points he feels are not NPOV and what points exactly require further citation.

2) Simmonstony is very willing to work on the article to bring it up to Johnfos's expectations if possible.

3) Simmonstony feels that we could work together on this easily.

4) David Woodward would like Simmonstony to stop reverting Revert

Discussion
I've added some more references. Addhoc 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also added more references. The article now seems well enough referenced. Would Johnfos agree?? Simmonstony 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see declarations of any affiliations of involved parties to Maitreya Project & it's worldwide legal entities. David Woodward 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Related discussion on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉  08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re David Woodward's comment, I think the central concern is if Simmonstony is Tony Simmons, Executive Director of the Maitreya Project. If so, this would be a major conflict of interest, and WP:COI becomes the guiding principle. Gordonofcartoon 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i feel that the article is currently very, very close to neutral now. i would like to ask approval from all involved, including Simmonstony, for me to edit the article again. Very good work is being done with the Model School and i would like to expand that part of the article. It is a fascinating project just from the design & engineering point of view & i would like to reflect that. I would also like to add some critical points, but i would endeavour to maintain a balance to retain NPOV. I would also like to thank all involved including but not restricted to: Johnfos, Admin. Athaenara, Mediation Cabalist SJP, Addhoc, Gordonofcartoon, & last but not least Simmonstony who has argued his case rather frankly at times, but has never-the-less worked within the culture of Wikipedia, listened to all comments, and withdrawn on his own admission to COI. David Woodward 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you bring up your edits on the talk page first, and make sure you have a consensus before making them. If you have a consensus there will be far less of a chance of edit warring in the future. Cheers!--SJP 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly happy, David, for anyone to edit this article, as should be the case in Wilipedia. Please see my latest comments on the talk page Simmonstony 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear SJP, well, i have been putting edits suggestions on the talk page under Talk:Maitreya_Project. Addhoc has kindly done two edits, but we are still left with a ref with a typo & no article title (currently #6 "Daniel Pepper article...") as well as a Maitreya Project ref which could perhaps have its title adjusted (currently #7 "Maitreya Project Clarification..."). Perhaps the problem is the size of the Talk page; this may benefit from archiving most of the sections, might i suggest: (1) "Comments" through to (17) "Back to basics" -- inclusive, which have (mostly) had no activity over the last few days. David Woodward 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)