Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor

Peter Proctor

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer
 * , DRN Volunteer


 * Note: One comment made here has been moved to the request talk page. Please make all comments there, not here. AGK  [•] 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * 1) Talk page discussion that tried to resolve the issue ([ permalink])
 * 2) DRN Case on Peter Proctor (archived)

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
 * Removal of claims in the article about the subject being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston as these are not supported by reliable and independent secondary sources. The only supporting reference is in research articles published by the subject and Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications. Request for reliable and verifiable independent sources has been pending sine May 2012. Nucleophilic and some others feel that it is the references provided should be sufficient as it is the general practice. I, chantoke and smokefoot are concerned that this is a contentious claim not supported by reliable sources and that this article may be an attempt to poromote a Dr. Peter Proctor living and working in the same area.


 * Removal of claims about the success of the subject in various fields which are not supported by reliable and verifiable sources.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * The Peter Proctor page was deleted on March 13, 2013.

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.''
 * 1) Agree. Wikishagnik (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Opt Out as not involved. I only tried to close down a thread that was long overdue for closure. I note that a very strong set of guidelines about staying on topic should be laid down prior to the discussion opening Hasteur (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Opt Out as not involved. I believe I made one procedural comment. I have no involvement in this dispute. Also, for whatever it is worth, it should be noted that the filing editor of this case is also a DR/N volunteer and was asked to step back and contribute to the dispute as a regular editor due to accusations of sock puppetry and lack of impartiality that I have yet to see any evidence of. The editor should be seen and looked at now as an involved party and not a DR/N volunteer.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree --Smokefoot (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. Ben (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Disagree. Irregularities abound, culminating in not listing all the concerned editors. For details, see my talk page reply to user:Hasteur. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree.  I was not involved in the article as a contributor, but became engaged as a DRN volunteer.  I'd be happy to participate in mediation. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Disagree. Bandn (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Opt Out as not (really) involved. I was involved in a very minor role. Also the arguments are rather confusing to me. Thanks for inviting me to participate though.-- Auric    talk  23:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree, my agreement was accepted by AGK overseeing this in Jan., as technical difficulties with offer. Inhouse expert (talk) 17:43, 10 February 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.''


 * Question to filing party: Why are, , , and not listed as parties to this mediation request? They appear to me to be involved in the dispute. Some of the other disputants (excluding those marked as DRN volunteers) also appear to have had little or no involvement in the dispute; why are they listed as parties to the dispute if their involvement to date has been minimal?  AGK  [•] 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have informed the parties indicated as per notification. As per the parties involved not being informed etc., I went purely by the respondents in DRN, the above users did not participate in the discussion so assumed that they have dropped out of the discussion. -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I have added these four editors to the list (at page top) of editors involved in the dispute. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Accept. We will assign a mediator to this dispute within two weeks. This acceptance is made without prejudice to prematurely closing the case in the event that one or more mediators determines that mediation is no longer required or appropriate. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the article was deleted, I'll close this request, if there aren't any objections. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)