Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28

First Vision
 view edit delete watch Filed: 00:59, July 21 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * The issue of inappropriate reversions has been extensively discussed on the talk page.
 * The user was reported for violation of WP:3RR.
 * The article has been protected twice in the last 10 days.
 * There has been extensive discussion about the various WP:NPOV issues on the current and archived talk pages.
 * A Request for comments has been ongoing for over two months.
 * attention over the issue has been raised on related wikiprojects requesting assistance.

Issues to be mediated

 * WP:NPOV.
 * WP:NPOV.
 * Assume good faith
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:NPOV

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Does a statement about lack of corroboration such as "...but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her memoirs" constitute criticism if it is positioned to lead the reader to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated or attributed, or is it a simple statement of fact?
 * Is it appropriate to have a section with the word 'criticism' in the section title in order to discuss common types of criticsm, and have a place to provide examples?
 * Can anybody really edit this article besides a small select group?

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.

]] 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. 74s181 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. --Storm Rider [[User talk:Storm Rider| (talk)
 * 1) Agree. The Jade Knight 08:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. CO GDEN  17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. --Robert Horning 10:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Diagree.John Foxe 13:50, 24 July 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, all parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 3
 view edit delete watch Filed: 19:19, July 29 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Extensive, fierce, enduring repetitive debates on the talk page about this issue, since April.

Issues to be mediated

 * Momento thinks that inclusion of certain statements is undue weight to Christian scholars, while Andries think that omission of statements sourced to (often multiple) reputable sources is against WP:NPOV.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * There are many unresolved disputes, but this seems the most pressing at the moment.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * 1) Agree Andries 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree.Momento 21:36, 30 July 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, Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 2 was closed only yesterday due to comments by parties which indicated that this mediation was going to be fruitless and it would be referred to arbitration anyways (see discussion here). The first sentence of this and the second sentence of the second paragraph here are further endorsements of the fact that if any party or parties involved in an RfM sincerely holds and expresses the belief that mediation will fail and be referred to the Arbitration Committee regardless, mediation cannot be effective and this Committee refuses to accomodate such situations.


 * Given the nature of the discussion, how recent it was, and how immediate this refiling was, the Committee rejects to accept this case on the grounds noted above. Furthermore, we endorse Sean Whitton's decision to close the mediation yesterday on the same grounds as noted above, per this.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel →♦  03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Saint Maurice
 view edit delete watch Filed: 23:38, August 3 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Discussion(reasoning)
 * Talk page discussion(attempted reasoning)
 * discussion of issues

Issues to be mediated

 * Constant reversions on all pages involved, lack of discussion
 * Personal attacks/accusations of racial bias
 * Suspected conspiracy to counter act every edit I make

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Antagonism
 * Rude behavior and shunning

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.Taharqa 23:38, 3 August 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 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; and that I believe the two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute. Further, it appears to be mainly a user conduct dispute, which is the type of dispute this Committee tends to avoid; rather, we focus on content disputes, due to limitations of the mediation model in an online environment.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel →♦  11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The others refuse to discuss it. And have deleted the invitation from their talk pages. That's the major problem. They are accusing Taharqa of Afrocentricism, yet they are banded together, and POV pushing an Arab POV. - Jeeny Talk 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeeny, has been doggedly wikistalking many users on pages about Egypt that she never edits, and making racial slurs about them like Taharqa. I'm the only who deleted the notice because it was rejected. Maybe it's time to open a case to deal with Jeeny's continuous harassment though. Egyegy 07:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of wikistalking, especally "doggedly" is an insult and incorrect. I'm here to better Wikipedia and provide a NPOV, and balancing of articles against such. You have stood out, because of you and the others banding together. And that is my concern. I have had these pages in my watch list for a long time, so I've noticed the group practice of turning other editors in for POV, wikistalking, sockpuppetry, vandalism, etc. This is the exact behavior that concerns me as a good faith editor to balance articles, and your and others accusations. How did you know I commented here if you were not watching ME? - Jeeny Talk 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, the case involved ME so it's still on my watchlist. Now you are trying to tell us that you just happen to be watching the Saint Maurice page, all the other Egyptian articles and all of of our talk pages? How "nice" of you. And Jeeny, your tone has been oozing of bigotry just like your buddy Taharqa. Try to tone it down, it makes you sound uglier. Egyegy 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for being absent for a while from Wikipedia English. I have been editing in the French Wikipedia. I know well the articles "Appearance..." and "Population History...". What Egyegy is saying here is pure nonsense. If he has a problem with the content of the article, he must be able of showing which quotation was distorted and which writer must be removed and why. If the quotations can be verified, and if the writers are good, there is no problem at all even if what is written does not please him. Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia, Egyegy can bring the writers he thinks must figure in the articles next to those who are already in. Then a discussion can began on the opportunity to keep those new writers or to reject them (meaning if they are credible or not).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
 view edit delete watch Filed: 21:27, July 29 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RfC

Issues to be mediated

 * Proper description of "Satanic Verses"/"Story of the Cranes" material in Muhammad. (If you do not feel this description of the dispute is adequate, let's all discuss it on the talk page until we come up with a description that is.)

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. BYT 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Aminz 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree.  ITAQALLAH   17:49, 3 August 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.''


 * Request: Initiating party, to what extent is and  involved in this dispute? Having noted the RfC and their substantial activity in talk page discussion (history), they appear to be in some way involved in this dispute. This Committee would like clarification from the initiating party as to whether they are considered 'outside views' per the article RfC filed, or should be considered a party to this RfM. The input of the other parties and the two users in question would also be appreciated. All discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Muhammad please.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel →♦  11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel →♦  07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Zadar
 view edit delete watch Filed: 06:43, August 4 2007 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Main issue is in Zadar, but there were disagreements in other articles:
 * Main issue is in Zadar, but there were disagreements in other articles:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RfC - Talk:Zadar

Issues to be mediated

 * Argument between the territorial occupation of Zadar, between Italy and Croatia, during present times and in history.
 * Argument between the nationality of several people.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Inconsistency and contradiction of sources, and the understanding of reliable sources.

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. --Zmaj 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree.--Giovanni Giove 09:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree.--Zenanarh 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree.--Brunodam 02:44, 11 August 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, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Professional wrestling aerial techniques
 view edit delete watch Filed: 04:13, August 7 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Third opinion
 * Administrators noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators noticeboard/3RR

Issues to be mediated

 * Naming of wrestling moves (specifically the Iconoclasm and XiBalba)
 * Reliable sources

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 WrestlefnLI 13:18, 7 August 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.''
 * Request: To initiating party, please provide a link to the third opinion. Thanks,  Daniel →♦  06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche and related articles
 view edit delete watch Filed: 06:56, August 17 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Issues to be mediated

 * Does continual re-insertion of speculative and contentious material that is published only by Political Research Associates or a similar organization constitute a violation of WP:FRINGE?
 * When such material is derogatory or contentious with respect to a living person, does it violate WP:BLP?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * In the case of Cberlet, who is employed in real life by Political Research Associates, does his continual re-insertion of material from that organization violate WP:COI?
 * Are the editors who continually re-insert this material in violation of WP:SOAP?

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. MaplePorter 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Marvin Diode 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree. In lieu of this mediation request, which appears mostly to deal with a behavioral dispute, I have initiated a content RfC. See: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:21, 20 August 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 →♦  07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev
 view edit delete watch Filed: 03:10, August 25 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * Extensive discussion (over 50 thousand words) on the talk page

Issues to be mediated

 * Whether the page should be moved to a page named Kyiv, with a redirect from Kiev

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. Horlo 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. --Hillock65 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree. —Michael Z. 2007-08-25 14:11 Z 
 * 4) Disagree Reginmund 05:16, 26 August 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. As noted on the talk page, if an RfM is going to be tried again in the future, please discuss which parties etc. should be included in any mediation proceedings on Talk:Kiev before filing a request, to prevent confusion. However, in this case, it is clear that all parties involved in the dispute on the Kiev article do not agree to mediation (Mzajac and Reginmund as noted above, Irpen on the talk page, etc.), and I have to reject this case on that basis per the mediation policy.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WiccaWeb
 view edit delete watch Filed: 17:00, August 29 2007 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * WiccaWeb's Talk Page
 * Please see Rklawton Talk Page for relevent abusive conduct.
 * Please see Rklawton Talk Page for relevent abusive conduct.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * I've tried to explaine to Rklawton that my *Discussion* comments are at least minimally valuble and that he needs to stop undoing them, I have been met with insults and agressive Talk comments and comment reverting.

Issues to be mediated

 * I ask that Rklawton be told to leave my Ortolan Bunting discussion comments alone, to stop reverting them, and to stop making agressive and insulting comments on my Talk Page.
 * Rklawton has vandalized both my Ortolan Bunting discussion comments as well as my Talk page.
 * WiccaWeb's inappropriate name-calling.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * An SPA has since vandalized the Ortolan Bunting bunting article and User:WiccaWeb's talk page. WiccaWeb has now accused me of sock puppetry.  I've blocked the IP in order to keep waters from getting muddied further.  However, a mediator may wish to look into the IP vandalism further.  Rklawton 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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. WiccaWeb 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Rklawton 18:18, 29 August 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. All issues listed are beyond the scope of this Committee (ie. "I ask that Rklawton be told to leave my Ortolan Bunting discussion comments alone..." - we follow a process of mediation, so we don't tell people what we do; "Rklawton has vandalized both my Ortolan Bunting discussion comments as well as my Talk page" - "alleged" vandalism is not a content dispute, and if a party seriously considers the other party's edits "vandalism" as per the Wikipedia definition, it's highly unlikely that the mediation model used by this Committee will achieve anything; "WiccaWeb's inappropriate name-calling" - behavioural, outside our scope; "An SPA has since vandalized the Ortolan Bunting bunting article...a mediator may wish to look into the IP vandalism further" - the idea of mediation is to resolve content disputes, and we couldn't help for this issue, especially since the SPA has accused you of sockpuppetry which makes finding a resolution to any content dispute that existed less likely).
 * Furthermore, I'd suggest trying other types of dispute resolution (ie. Mediation Cabal) before an RfM. If another RfM is filed down the track, please be sure to focus the issues on the content dispute, because the Committee limits itself to dealing with these due to the nature of the mediation model.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

eComXpo
 view edit delete watch Filed: 05:07, August 26 2007 (UTC)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * 2. AfD Debate for the article (Keep)
 * Deletion Review Discussion that followed the AfD (Endorsed Decision)
 * Proposed resolution with request for comment
 * Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
 * 2nd Attempt for Peaceful Resolution

Issues to be mediated

 * WP:V of sourced material
 * WP:NPOV of presentation of material
 * Removal of un-sourced material
 * WP:COI as it might or might not apply to User:Cumbrowski

Additional issues to be mediated

 * WP:SYNTH
 * WP:CORP
 * WP:N
 * Potential restoration of deleted material (to avoid rewriting)
 * Review of Suggestions and Material provided on Talk Page (ignored so far and not used for the article) --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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. --Cerejota 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. — xDanielx T/C 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree as already declared on August 25, 2007 --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 06:20, 26 August 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.''
 * Note: Five items listed in the "Additional issues to be mediated" section which were purely behavioural or behavioural/process issues have been removed as outside the remit of mediation. The Mediation Committee will not address these issues during mediation, as it is outside our scope. The Committee focus purely on content issues, due to the restrictions of the mediation model. The items are still located in the history; see here.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  06:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)