Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cryonics

Cryonics

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should a letter signed by various scientists supporting cryonics be mentioned in the cryonics article?   (There is a question of undue weight)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * If the letter is mentioned in the article, should a reference (a link or citation) to the primary source be included? (This was an issue in the previous resolution attempt.)
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC) - My participation has been as DRN mediator. I am requesting that this issue be transferred to formal mediation because it isn't being resolved in the time for DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh. It rather depends on whether the corpsicle fans will accept a result that goes against them. That article is bloated out with endless material that has only the most tenuous connection to mainstream scientifically established reality. [clarification] I know there's no binding mediation, my concern is exactly as David Gerard states: the corpsicle fans demonstrate the classic behaviour of keep asking until you get the answer you want. The correct outcome of mediation is for Nome77 to accept that when several experienced wikipedians tell you that you're wrong, it is wise to consider the possibility that you are, in fact, wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I suspect this is vastly premature. The dispute was brought to the DRN by Nome77, a fresh SPA (literally all his edits are on this point - it is possible that WP:COIN would be a more appropriate venue for this matter) who tried to filibuster the talk page and was filling the DRN with the sort of synthesis from first principles that hadn't worked on the article talk page either. It's entirely unclear this will resolve anything at all, and of course it won't be binding on anyone not participating, even though I think the editor in question was seeking a binding ruling on the content issue that would nail it in place in the article forever (which isn't what DRN or binding mediation is for). Resolving the dispute is a good thing, but the problem here appears to be an SPA whose editing pattern seems to reflect having come to Wikipedia in order to promote a particular item - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Updated/clarified: I agree to participate in mediation. (Without any conditions.) The previous Dispute Resolution Attempt ended without resolution, due to lack of unanimous agreement. I would also agree to a "voluntarily binding mediation" ("Binding" to whatever degree that "binding mediation" exists, or not binding if that does not exist). I'm seeking some way for an impasse to be decided, that would be acceptable to all participating parties.  (Response to personal statements from JzG/'Guy':) I've been told and experienced Guy's Reputation as a Bully (2)  (3) (etc). Assuming other editors intentions, excluding instead of describing POVs, and dictating content dispute outcomes were not the intended usages of the Admin privilege. -- Nome77 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree to abide by whatever agreement may be reached in this process for as long as underlying facts remain substantially the same. So there is no misunderstanding, the discussion that led here was never about inclusion of the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics in its entirety within the cryonics article, but about whether, and with what referencing, mere mention of the Letter was permissible. Cryobiologist (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with both  and the final comment by . This is very premature, and the clear course of action is for the inexperienced editor with no editing experience outside of this issue to listen to editors with more experience. Furthermore, I find Nome77's complaints about Guy to be spurious (I have never seen nor heard of Guy using his admin powers or any other 'weight' to coerce another editor into doing things his way, or to drive away an editor), nonsensical (in the first link, the denigration of Guy's repeated claim that a skeptical point of view is a neutral point of view is ridiculous and ignorant) and utterly inappropriate here (I seem to recall some diatribe about how behavior is not a subject of discussion here which seems to be rather inconsistently used,  and ). So no, I don't agree to this. This is already a settled issue and DRN is rather less neutral and useful than it should be, anyways. Since there is no consensus for using the letter, we shouldn't use the letter.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Chairperson's note: Robert McClenon will not be considered in whether there are enough "accepts" for the Committee to take this case under our prerequisites. I would note that the case at DRN must also be closed before this case can be considered for acceptance here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
 * I note that the DRN case has now been closed. It should be noted that at this point in time only Cryobiologist's response will be evaluated an an "accept."
 * Nome77 agrees only to binding mediation, which does not exist at Wikipedia and, in particular, Mediation Committee policy states that mediation decisions are not binding. There is no choice between binding and non-binding mediation. The purpose of mediation is to seek consensus and the comments in Binding Mediation only refer to agreements which constitute consensus. Nome77's current response will be not be evaluated as either an acceptance or rejection.
 * David Gerard's response is clearly a "reject."
 * JzG's comment "depends on whether the corpsicle fans will accept a result that goes against them" also suggests binding mediation. As noted in Binding Mediation, "Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises." JzG's current response will be not be evaluated as either an acceptance or rejection.
 * While this case could be rejected at this point for failing to have the sufficient acceptance, I'm going to leave it open to determine whether any of the current responders wish to modify their response. All potential parties are reminded that formal mediation is not a tribunal or arbitration: the mediator will not hear all of the arguments and then render a decision (much less a binding decision). The only purpose of formal mediation is to provide a structured discussion with a view towards trying to bring the participants to consensus.
 * Having said what I have above, however, I will note that while the Committee does not have the right to make mediation decisions binding, either on its own initiative or by the agreement of the parties, the parties may enter into an agreement among themselves outside the mediation process that they will abide by any consensus which is reached here. (Though, as noted at Binding Mediation, it must be remembered that such agreements are not directly enforceable at Wikipedia, though some indirect enforcement may be possible. See that link for additional detail.) A response stating an acceptance here which is conditioned upon the other parties entering into or complying with such an agreement must, however, be evaluated as neither an acceptance or rejection since it cannot be the Committee's obligation to determine whether such conditions have or have not been fulfilled. For that reason, it would be best to attempt to work out any such desired agreement at some other place, such as the article talk page or one user's talk page, and only record unconditional acceptances or rejections here.
 * The period for acceptances or rejections will end, if the case does not sooner qualify for clear acceptance or rejection, at 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Accept/reject period extended due to one party not being given timely notice due to misspelling of his/her username. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It now appears to me that the responses of Guy, David Gerard, and MjolnirPants all evaluate to "reject" and that this case should be rejected for mediation. To allow for the possibility that I'm reading that wrong, I'm going to hold off rejecting it under prerequisite to mediation #5 for 24 hours in case one or more of them wants to clarify their position to clearly say that they are accepting mediation (in which event the case will be accepted since #5 will then be satisfied). If I have correctly evaluated their responses as "rejects," they need do nothing to make that clearer. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reject Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5 that a majority of the participants agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)