Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chikungunya

Chikungunya

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Issues to be mediated
Inclusion of the content - to the Treatment section of the Chikungunya article. The content is verifiable by the source - prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. I have made the content unbiased. The content can be published under ==Treatment== section as per section guidelines. But Users Jmh649, Ian_Furst, Axl and LeadSongDog are opposing the content saying still we need sources, bad primary research and many personal opinions. India is one of the country where Chikungunya is much affected. The content which i am trying to add is the current methods of treatment which the Indian Government is promoting based on the observations of these treatments and as at present, there are no 100% satisfactory treatments available anywhere. There are enough sources to prove these happenings in India.
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)

This is silly. Consensus to use this source is against you on the talk page. The source you are attempting to use is no good, especially for the content you are attempting to use it for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional issues (added by other parties)

I think mediation is pointless at this stage. The report was authored and published by the "CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA", it was not prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research as claimed, it uses the Wikipedia article itself as a reference and we've discussed at length, in two different forums, it's limitations both technically and as a reliable source. There is strong consensus against the use of this report Ian Furst (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is simple wp:IDHT.We should not be wasting time on this.LeadSongDog come howl!  13:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 and LeadSongDog, the only question you need to answer now is a simple yes/no one: do you agree to go through the mediation process, or not? There's no need to talk about the source at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Sathishmls (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Lack of agreement of participants to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)