Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/14

State Bar of California
 view edit delete watch Filed: 18:16, November 19 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * Coolcaesar
 * Coolcaesar

Articles involved

 * State Bar of California

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Bar_of_California
 * WP:AN/I discussion == Why I took out a passage today ==

Today I deleted the following passage:

California State Bar Law Office Study Program

The California State Bar Law Office Study Program allows California residents to become California Attorneys with no law school, or college, assuming they meet basic educational requirements. If the candidate has no college, he or she may take and pass the CLEP, or College Level Examination Program []. The Bar candidate must study under a judge or lawyer for four years and must also pass the Baby Bar within three administrations after first becoming eligible to take the examination. California Attorney, Michael P. Ehline, [] http://passthebarandbabybar.blogspot.com/ is one of only a few known attorneys on the Law Office Study Program to take and pass the CLEP. Ehline went on the Law Office Study Program and passed the California First Year Law Students Exam (Baby Bar), while on the California State Bar Law Office Study Program. Ehline passed the General Bar Exam and became a practicing attorney with no JD. Attorney Ehline claims all it takes is desire and hard work if you want to become a lawyer in the traditional way.

Therefore, you can become a lawyer in California the traditional way (Law Office Study), or by going to law school. But you must first pass the Baby Bar.

The above was deleted because it violates the Wikipedia policy of no self-promotion (Section 1.4.2 of What Wikipedia is not) as well as the Notability guideline. Mr. Ehline is not notable, and the Law Office Study Program is so rarely used that it does not merit an entire paragraph within what is already becoming a ridiculously long section of an article that is supposed to be about the State Bar, not the California Bar Exam.--Coolcaesar 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I added the Section Back About Law Office Study

First I note that the section has been removed by a person claiming to be a lawyer who attended traditional law school claiming study of law in a law office is "insignificant." The Law Office Study Program is the only available program that will enable those without money or higher education to become attorneys in California. Saying it is "insignificant" defeats the intent of this article and suppresses valuable information. Attorney Ehline is a public figure and is notorious under the Wikipedia guidelines. [] Ehline has articles about him in the LA Daily Journal as well as an instruction blog on becoming an attorney with no law school or college. [] [] A single paragraph is insignificant when compared to the value of the content to those who don't have the education or resources the censor of the article apparrently had. ]]

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works; Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

Here, there are two independent sources about Ehline, Paul Pfau, Cal Bar Tutorial Web Page, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal Article, which are not press releases. The sources do not mention Attorney Ehline in passing and instead are about him and how he became an attorney on the Law Office Study Program. Furthermore, Ehline is not selling anything. Ehline is an attorney not engaged in the bar review or law school business. It would be great if the censor would recognize the fact that the single paragraph meets or exceeds the guidelines.

Although the article is about the Bar, the Bar exam is inseparable. Perhaps we should do a wiki on Law Office Study? If not, the single paragraph is a high value paragraph.

If not let's take it to an admin. With Resepect.


 * With regard to the frivolous "valuable information" argument, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information, nor it it a directory. See Sections 1.4, 1.7 and 1.8 of official policy What Wikipedia is not. If people are interested in learning about the law office study program, that's what the Admissions section of the State Bar Web site is for.  Even if Ehline's story is interesting (which I highly doubt), this article is not the place to draw attention to his meager accomplishments; several of my former law school classmates and current co-workers are ex-military who made the sacrifice to go back to school and get their bachelor's degrees and J.D.'s.
 * Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of original research under the extremely strict No original research policy. When the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times does a profile on Ehline, then he might be worth mentioning on Wikipedia, but his story would be covered in a separate article and then his name would be linked from here as an interesting example of a person who has actually qualified through the law office study program.  But right now, an article on Mr. Ehline would not survive the rigorous Articles for deletion process.
 * Furthermore, Ehline is not very notable per the notability guideline; a Google search reveals only 555 hits for his name (most of which appear to be hits in lawyer directories). An example of a notable person would be Roger Traynor, whose article I did almost all the research for.  Note how Traynor has been mentioned in the L.A. Times, the N.Y. Times, and the Daily Journal, plus the California Law Review and several other publications.
 * To be absolutely sure, I just ran searches for Ehline on two major news databases: Infotrac OneFile (operated by Thomson Gale) and ProQuest Library. Neither returned any hits.  OneFile, by the way, has 57 million articles from thousands of magazines and newspapers. ProQuest is even bigger.
 * As for the sources cited, Paul Pfau's Web site is not a reliable source because he himself is selling a product, which in turn raises doubt as to whether the Daily Journal article itself is being reprinted accurately. And blogs are inherently unreliable as well as a poor indicator of what is really notable (since there are a lot of non-notable and bizarre conspiracy theories that are constantly exchanged through blogs).
 * I urge you to refrain from reinserting original research into Wikipedia, or you may be banned. The no original research policy is a core non-negotiable policy of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Arbitration Committee agreed with my assessment of the last user I encountered who was persistently unable to understand it.  --Coolcaesar 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Why I added the Section Back About Law Office Study Again

Your insults are not well taken. Threatening to have me banned is a violation of the rules. Ehline has an article published about him a reputable Los Angeles Daily Journal Article and another independent article from Cal Bar Tutorial Review. The Daily Journal Article on his site is an exact duplicate of the original (use your eyes instead of saying it "raises doubt") (multiple sources) I respect that you went to traditional law school, but it does not give you the right to be a thought policeman and claim that the law office study is meager or insignificant.

Rather than continue threatening me and erasing valuable material, I recc we take this to a moderator to settle this once and for all! Respectfully and until then: You must not: Attempt to hold a debate on this page. Discussions take place after acceptance, not before: There is no need for, desire to read, or acceptance of lengthy debates on the merit of mediation. If you wish to debate on whether to mediate, do it on the article's talk page, not here. Move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee.

I further note that I did remove the blog so your argument about blogs was improper because it had been removed.

Issues to be mediated

 * Issue 1 Whether or not attorney Ehline is notable.
 * Issue 2 Whether or not law office study is insignificant

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Issue 3: Whether including information on Mr. Ehline in this article violates the No original research policy.
 * Issue 4: Whether including improperly sourced information on Mr. Ehline in any Wikipedia article violates the Verifiability policy.
 * Issue 5: Whether including information on Mr. Ehline in any Wikipedia article violates the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Issue 6: Whether including improperly sourced information on Mr. Ehline in any Wikipedia article violates the Biographies of living persons policy.
 * Issue 7: Whether including information on the Law Office Study Program in this article violates the No original research policy.
 * Issue 8: Whether including information on the Law Office Study Program in this article violates the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Issue 9: Whether issuethewrit has an undisclosed conflict of interest (since living people are generally not supposed to contribute to content about themselves).
 * Issue 10: Whether or not the voluntary removal of mention of Ehline from the article makes all of the above arguments moot, as the only issue remaining is whether or not the Law Office Study Program and Published article from Daily Journal about Law Office Study is "insignificant"

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. issuethewrit
 * Agree. --Coolcaesar 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: The extremely lengthy discussion above (which, by the way, is a violation of the process in itself; we really do mean "no lengthy discussion, bullet points only") demonstrates that the parties are throughly misinformed about the nature of mediation. This is not arbitration, we aren't moderators (we're mediators), and we don't open cases where parties are attempting to usurp our perrogative and issue demands to one another. Rejected.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost
 view edit delete watch Filed: 06:41, November 28 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Example

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC link
 * WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

 * Refusual to publish Wikiproject Reporty

Additional issues to be mediated
Nil

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Improperly filed
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism
 view edit delete watch Filed: 20:34, November 19 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Communism
 * Socialism

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communism#Request_for_Comment_on_Anarchist_Communism_Section
 * WP:AN/I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#User:172
 * Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172#Libertarian_Socialism_and_Mutualism

Issues to be mediated

 * Dispute over Anarchist Communism section in Communism article.
 * Dispute over wikilink to Libertarian Socialism in Socialism first paragraph.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. Donnacha 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. JBKramer 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Localzuk(talk) 07:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree--Red Deathy 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Duncan 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Vision Thing -- 13:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Blockader 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.BernardL 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jacob Haller 21:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: All parties did not agree to medaite.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
 view edit delete watch Filed: 23:03, December 1 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Palestine

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC link
 * WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

 * Parties disagree whether the article should or should not contain multiple conflicting peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed sources
 * Parties disagree whether Mark Twain and Katz breach the regulations vis-a-vis sources contained within WP:RS and WP:V

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree Wood345 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Amoruso 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Ian Pitchford 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Zerotalk 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia Signpost 2
 view edit delete watch Filed: 08:23, December 3 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom - Copy for the week in question here
 * User:Nathannoblet/Wikiproject Report

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Nil-Matter too serious

Issues to be mediated

 * Removal of Wikiproject Report 2 weeks running, 2nd time without a valid reason.

Additional issues to be mediated
Nil

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. -- Nathannoblet 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Ral315 (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: All parties must agree to medaite for a case to be accepted.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 Attacks
 view edit delete watch Filed: 20:52, November 27 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * September 11, 2001 attacks

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography
 * more than 4 years of discussion on the article's talk page

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether including conspiracy theories in detail is POV

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree.--Acebrock 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Lovelight 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Regebro 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--User:Pedant 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Peter Grey 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--PTR 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: All parties did not agree to medaite within the allowed 7 days.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  02:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic
 view edit delete watch Filed: 20:16, December 5 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Free Republic

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_Republic

Issues to be mediated

 * Issue 1: Whether the use of the word "vandalism," in reference to Free Republic threads calling for civil and polite discourse on other websites, is inflammatory and represents a non-neutral POV.
 * Issue 2: Whether citation of the credentials of Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer, one of the nation's leading authorities on Microsoft document analysis, and citation of the Wikipedia article Killian documents authenticity issues is appropriate when discussing the authenticity of the so-called "Killian memos."
 * Issue 3: Whether this article should be locked (preventing further editing) due to the continuous editing and reverting that has been going on.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. BryanFromPalatine 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Nothing to mediate.  This user changed the consensus version.  I reverted it the three times I'm allowed.  User may violate the consensus however he wishes, but others will no doubt object too. --BenBurch 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite. Noting, however, that 3RR is not an entitlement, please see WP:3RR.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)
 view edit delete watch Filed: 03:04, November 28 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties
* Too disgusted with participants' behavior for me to want any further involvement in this issue. PKtm 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Naming conventions (television)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
 * WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines
 * By extension, all articles about television episodes.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC: ,
 * Survey, currently located at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC
 * Village pump (policy) discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV and WikiProjects
 * Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
 * Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines

Issues to be mediated

 * Has a consensus about the naming of television episode articles been established?
 * Should the guideline explicitly name television series with WikiProjects using different naming patterns as "exceptions"?
 * If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?
 * Would another poll on this subject be appropriate?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -- BlueSquadron Raven  03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree -- BlueSquadron Raven  21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Jay32183 03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Ned Scott 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree -- Ned Scott 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -Anþony (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --  Wikipedical 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Wiki  e Zach|  talk  03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - Riverbend 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree —Wknight94 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Serge 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, per Milo (below). --Serge 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - EnsRedShirt 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree —Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Chuq 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -- `/aksha 10:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree - as per Milo's reasons below. -- `/aksha 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Tango 12:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Milo H Minderbinder 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree - given the disruption and bad faith Elonka has shown, particularly by attempting to cite the participation in this RfM as admission that the guideline is "in dispute"   and thus shouldn't be followed, it seems her intent isn't to actually have a compromise mediated, but build a case (User:Elonka/NC summary) for anticipated future binding intervention .--Milo H Minderbinder 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree --Elonka 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Peregrinefisher 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Extend: I do see mediation as being possible here, and I do believe all edits have been in good faith. However, given the current edit-warring going on the request page itself, I am having it locked and allowing further discussion as to what the mediation will entail on this page's talk page.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since unprotection, I am giving it an additional 7 days for there to be consensus on whether to move forward with mediation or not, per the usual timeframe. This sets the new deadline to the 11th of December.
 * For the Medition Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rejected: First and foremost, major parties no longer agree to mediation. Second, due to massive action whether supposedly with consensus or not has inflamed further debate, and I do not see a productive mediation occurring.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Toyotomi Hideyoshi
 view edit delete watch Filed: 07:52, December 9 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC link
 * WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

 * Characterization of opposition forces in the paragraph describing Toyotomi's failed invasion of China through Korea.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Naming the leaders in that opposition force.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree. Geeman 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Mediation needs more than one party.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education
 view edit delete watch Filed: 17:53, December 9 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Landmark Education

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#RFC_summary:_Prominence_of_controversy_reference_in_lead
 * WP:AN/I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Notices_of_WP:AN.2F3RR
 * Comment : The 3RR was on a totally unrelated issue, namely total lack of sourcing for negative information that was decided as a non-block. The RFC was initiated recently by user Wbroun, but that user appears to have ignored the true third-party comment.  For these reasons, mediation is too soon.  Further, the proposed rewrites of Wbroun are not neutral in tone and totally unprofessional for an encyclopedia. Sm1969 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

 * Issue 1: How prominently should the mass-cultural profile of Landmark Education appear in the lead paragraphs of the article. One side believes it should be left out of the lead and only referred to much later in the article. Another side believes that without some mention of the controversy in the first few paragraphs, a reader could easily miss that the controversy even exists.
 * Issue 2: How much of a controversy is there, actually? One side says it is essentially just a matter of opinion. The other side has provided many references to the controversy in widely published, respected newspapers around the world.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Additional issue 1: What basis for controversy is there? One side believes this is an important issue in itself. The other side believes this is a distinctly secondary issue due to the widespread cultural profile of Landmark as a controversial entity.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Wbroun 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree. Sm1969 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Sm1969 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree DaveApter 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Smeelgova 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC). - Please see my comments on talk page. Smeelgova.
 * 7) Agree. -Will Beback · † · 20:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Having read the discussion on the talk page, I'm afraid this case can't be accepted. It's obvious that User:Jossi has been involved with this article and is involved in this dispute, making him an involved party; we don't have a "quasi-involved" status for participants. If Jossi wishes to take part in the mediation, he is welcome to list himself as a party (in a new request) and agree to participate; one cannot, however, elect to redefine onesself as "uninvolved" while remaining involved (as the talk page conversation reveals). I'm afraid this is a case of "All parties do not agree to mediate" and must be rejected. The parties are welcome to discuss thier next step on thier talk pages/the article's talk page, come to a decision, and refile for mediation if all are willing to participate.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  02:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I recused myself from editing the article when the requested mediation was placed, so I would have expected that to be taken into account. In any case, it seems that editors there have found some common ground. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)