Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/25

Template:History of Manchuria
 view edit delete watch Filed: 06:50, June 6 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Discussion at talk page
 * Request for RfC History and Geography
 * Request for Third Opinion

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether the template should be titled History of Manchuria or History of Northeast China.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Cydevil38 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Good friend100 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties did not express their agreement to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Elvira Arellano
 view edit delete watch Filed: 14:30, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RfC on Categories issue as well as prior discussion on it
 * NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #1
 * NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #2
 * NPOV Dispute & Factual Accuracy Discussion #3
 * RfCs and Request for Third Opinion have also been made by me on related issues within this same article here and  here with the same editors to no effect.

Issues to be mediated

 * [Section 2.3 on talk page] Use of categories Fugitives, Mexican criminal, Mexican American leaders etc. for the article Subject.
 * [Sections 2.5,  2.6,  2.7 on talk page] Neutrality (NPOV dispute) & Factual Accuracy dispute which includes the recent revert of the entire article to what it was a month ago by User:Evrik which in effect deleted a significant amount of sourced content after only one day of discussion.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. --LordPathogen 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. [Comment removed.] --evrik (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling
 view edit delete watch Filed: 10:16, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Talk:J. K. Rowling: Issue discussed repeatedly between Libertycookies and other editors, on the article's talk page, on editors' talkpages on the talk pages of all involved. (Serendipodous, AulaTPN and Libertycookies}.
 * Both User:T-dot and User:Fbv65edel have acted as third party mediators.
 * User:Haemo has acted as RfC. He recommended the deletion of all of Libertycookies' content; Libertycookies refused to allow it, as he has done on multiple occasions.
 * A Request for Arbitration Requests_for_arbitration is (was) pending but appears to be bound for rejection on the grounds of being a "content dispute" and "The community can deal with the issues raised here".
 * A deletion debate over similar content on Libertycookes's article Politics and influences of J. K. Rowling. The article was unanimously declared OR and deleted. The admin who launched the debate Jossi, has just deleted the entire politics section of JK Rowling on the grounds that it effectively recreated the deleted article on another page and bypassed the WP:AfD process. Serendipodous 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted for lacking citations that have been since added to the main article, and for other content that was OR and left deleted. Jossi has been politely asked to allow mediation to follow its course. Libertycookies 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether the entire "Politics section" of the JK Rowling article constitutes original research and should be deleted
 * Whether any claims have been made by Liberty as outlined below.
 * Whether Liberty's claims that Rowling's admiration for socialist Jessica Mitford translates into tacit support of her political views constitute original research
 * Whether this is supported by any of the citations provided by Libertycookies
 * Whether Libertycookies's assertion that the books promote a political agenda of anarchy and rebellion among the youth is original research
 * Whether this assertion is supported by the citations given by Libertycookies.
 * Whether Libertycookies's assertion that Rowling's admission of her liking for the books of E Nesbit translates into tacit support for the Fabian Society constitutes original research.
 * Whether Liberycookies's use of Warner Brothers' promotional poster for the fifth Harry Potter film, and the inferred connection with Rowling's supposed anarchist agenda, is original research.
 * Whether Libertycookies's assertions comprise a Synthesis of ideas not found in the sources
 * Whether Libertycookies's edits are in violation of the strict anti-OR rules mandated by WP:BLP

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Whether Liberycookies's use of a quote by John Granger, which describes a symbolic figure, John Bull, in terms reserved for actual people, is valid or relevant.
 * I've truncated the quote from Granger to eliminate the confusing 'John Bull' part.
 * Whether Libertycookies's insertion of an unverifiable hearsay quote by Rowling biographer Sean Smith should be deleted

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Serendipodous 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. AulaTPN 10:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Libertycookies 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Reject. Although all three participants have agreed to mediation from the Mediation Committee, the Committee has decided that this request for mediation is not within our scope or our limits. This dispute is largely behavioural, with the link back to the text being far weaker than that of the behavioural issues alone. As evidenced by the above list of 'Issues to mediated', this mainly centres around one parties' apparent failure to follow core policy, WP:OR. This is not something we can help you with. The current arbitration request, Requests for arbitration, sits at (1/2/0/0), with ''Reject, do not see an ArbCom case here. The community can deal with the issues raised here'' being one of the comments. As evidenced by Jossi's comment on the talk page of this case, one party is merely repeatedly adding what consensus believes is OR, and this party will be blocked if they do it again. Such a situation is not appropriate to work out a 'comprimise solution', as the Mediation Committee refuses to bend consensus' interpretation of official policy on this issue to allow mediation to be effective. Although the parties are thanked for their good-faith input into this case, the Committee respectfully requests that the parties engage in a more user conduct-based dispute resolution method, such as requests for comment or the arbitration case, if accepted.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Peers
 view edit delete watch Filed: 06:39, June 16 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Talk:Welsh_Peers
 * User talk:Pmanderson

Issues to be mediated

 * Deletion of article

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Drachenfyre 06:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject. The deletion of an article is not a matter for mediation; rather, community consensus decides whether the article can be deleted at Articles for deletion/Welsh Peers. This may provide more information.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson Awards and Achievements
 view edit delete watch Filed: 12:55, June 16 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * Metros
 * Rhythmnation2004

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * 
 * 

Issues to be mediated

 * [Removed to history - extensive and cause of debate]

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Rhythmnation2004 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. Metros 19:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BosWash
 view edit delete watch Filed: 02:07, June 18 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted
was a request from 71.250.123.226 for a motivation of the deletion more detailed than a mere "missing consensus". At the request, Black Harry not only did not answer, but removed the request.

Issues to be mediated

 * Should Jersey City, New Jersey be listed under the list of major cities in BosWash?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Is User:black Harry acting hastily and should his powers as Administrator be restrained?

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. --71.250.123.226 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Rejected, firstly, restricting administrator's powers does not fall within our area of work as a committee. Secondly, even if it did, Black Harry is not an administrator.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

John Buscema
 view edit delete watch Filed: 17:34, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Request for Comment ending March 7, 2007, at Talk:John Buscema and its continuation, Talk:John Buscema

Issues to be mediated

 * Inclusion of material that the RfC consensus determined was POV.
 * Inclusion of illustrations that the RfC consensus determined was duplicative, decorative, and of a large number whose quantity may violate fair use.
 * Inclusion of a link to a commercial site that auctions comic-book art.
 * Use of an idiosyncratic, non-standard footnote style.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. --Tenebrae 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties did not express their agreement to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett
 view edit delete watch Filed: 23:11, June 20 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Mediation Cabal
 * Third Party opinions from RS/N
 * Third Party opinions from BLP/N
 * RfC Biographies
 * RfC Maths, science, and technology
 * Surveys
 * Surveys
 * Surveys

Issues to be mediated

 * The inclusion/exclusion of the following content: Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. -- Dēmatt</b> (chat)  03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. --I&#39;clast 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree robert2957 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree  Steth 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. RalphLender talk 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. Jim Butler(talk) 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Disagree. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Gurü</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Disagree. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Disagree. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Leipzig
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align: right; font-size: 75%; width: 21%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; float: right; padding: 10px;"> view edit delete watch Filed: 17:35, June 25 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Leipzig&action=edit&section=9*Example
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voyevoda#Battle_of_Leipzig

Issues to be mediated

 * Reordering the flag box to put the Russian flag on top, this has caused a lot of complaints from other users. It was alphabetical when I asked that this stop I was told to stop interfering and stop protecting the Austrians?  Then referreral was made to the German talk page on this battle.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Tirronan 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Voyevoda 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that a) you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; b) I believe the two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute; and c) you would benefit from the Mediation Cabal's presently-quicker turnover rate in resolving this discussion.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Virtual Console games (North America)
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align: right; font-size: 75%; width: 21%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; float: right; padding: 10px;"> view edit delete watch Filed: 05:04, June 27 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Discussion on Talk Page

Issues to be mediated

 * If/how Wii Points should be included in the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article.
 * How games whose points cost is an exception to the standard rule should be noted in the article.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * None

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Miles Blues 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. TJ Spyke 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. LN3000 05:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. DurinsBane87 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Disagree RobJ1981 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.''
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)