Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Single-Payer healthcare

Single-Payer health care

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * First DRN
 * Second DRN
 * NPOV Noticeboard
 * Third DRN
 * RfC
 * ArbComm attempt

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.''

The main issue is whether or not the polls are of a single-payer system or whether they are polls of different kinds of government healthcare. According to every single reliable source (including those that state most people do not want single-payer) a poll is a poll of single-payer if it roughly describes a single-payer system not whether the words "single-payer" are in it.
 * Primary issues

The other editors have disgreed and said it can only be a single-payer system if the words "single-payer" appear in it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)

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. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not a party and I don't agree.    This is another of the approx 7 forum shops by CartoonDiablo (and one of three forums open at the moment)  About 90% of what they say at the forum shops is a deception. Meanwhile, this (and other such things) has been their excuse to edit war in material which is in clear violation of wp:ver while avoiding substantive discussion at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any event, the question is manipulatively mis-stated, it is actually about whether it should be described by the article as such. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't agree or disagree at the moment. I'm more incredulous that we've jumped to yet another forum.  I'm going to be crystal clear at this point: my hesitation is that I do not see this as a good faith attempt to solve the problem.  In my opinion, you do not drag editors to arbcom, to AN/I, threaten them numerous times, and toss out multiple dishonest statements and then get to move to another forum when none of those provide the result you want.  You do not call for a topic ban for someone, and then try to get them to agree to mediation on the same topic you want them banned from when it appears the tables might get turned on you.  I need some evidence that this is a good faith attempt at resolution before I consider this further, as my patience is very near exhausted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I would rather have my fingernails pulled out than participate in this mediation. I keep being asked to weigh in on the dispute after repeatedly explaining I no longer want to have anything whatsoever to do with the topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 27 January 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.''
 * Reject. Formal mediation would not be of benefit to this dispute, at least at this time. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)