Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archives/3

Unassigned cases
We currently have two cases unassigned since the end of January. Could they please be assigned? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I may take on another if they are still open after March 16. seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  04:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed a backlog notice on WP:RFM, primarily due to Jayjg's points: we've got two cases unassigned since January, plus another from February and one from March. AGK (contact) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one know what is going on with a request? I made a request 2 days ago. I have no idea if the request fell into the void or what, It was regarding the anti-Americanism article. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on taking a case to help reduce the backlog. Hope there's no problems with this. Wizardman 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that there are others who've been waiting longer than us, but I'm wondering if you'd be able to provide an estimate of whenabouts somebody might become available to take on the Peter Yarrow case. Much obliged, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same query re: Yarrow. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the New antisemitism request still pending or has it fallen through the ether? It's been a couple months now. csloat (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in use on main page
Folks, don't know who edits the main page here but the phrase, "cases are not assigned to mediators as they have free reign to mediate cases at their discretion" needs to read "have free rein to mediate..." (smile). See rein. "Reign" is an eggcorn. (LOL) May want to fix it, though. Montanabw (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. Daniel (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
I've finished mediating Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow as a successful case, how do I close and archive it?  MBisanz  talk 06:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Replied via email a while ago; case closed and archived.) Daniel (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Status update
The Republic_of_China_2 case has been accepted two weeks ago, but we haven't heard of a mediator yet. Please could we get a status update on it? Thank you, Laurent (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pinged the Committee mailing list on this. Thanks for your patience in the meanwhile. AGK 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can take this case. Andre (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification template and encouraging case participation
I've updated the "note to possible parties". I hope the updated text is an improvement. Hopefully the edit speaks for itself.

One change to consider: maybe stop calling users in a case "parties" and change it to something like "disputants" or "users in dispute". Although parties is accurate, the term itself implies adversarial systems, where "parties" oppose each other. It may deter some from participating.

Especially consider this aspect - how will a user feel, when they log in and are told a strong opponent in a dispute has now named them as a "party" on something. Consider how users at Arbitration feel about being named a "party" by an opponent, it may be they'd feel the same on reading such a note here. Some may feel defensive and even inclined to reject the request or treat it with suspicion. What's desired of course is that they feel a fair attempt is being made to resolve the dispute by involving third party neutral mediators and discussion, that this is safe to try, and that as a main user involved in the dispute they are being invited to join in mediation with a view to resolving it. As such I'd suggest wording such as "invited" or "users who are involved" in preference to "parties".

FT2 (Talk 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest one other change that may increase the number of successful applications. At present if one user declines, mediation cannot proceed. I'd change the RfM wording slightly, to ask users who disagree, whether they would be happy to abide by whatever agreement other users have reached, or if they would allow the case to go ahead based on the other users who have agreed. Either way there should be some way to avoid the common situation where a user names and notifies everyone (even some who may not be needed to resolve the matter) and then just one decline can block the case. Maybe warn users "Please consider naming the main disputants only, as even one decline can prevent mediation going ahead". Or maybe have "users needed for mediation to be helpful" as distinct from "other users who may be interested in the dispute". Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rewrites and useful advice, FT2. I've built on them with a revision a few moments ago to the template; please do take a peek and give your input on it. Amongst other things, I've incorporated your suggestion that the template was likely to make those who were unfamiliar with formal mediation suspicious and so prone to disagreeing with the request; please see the second paragraph, which is largely focussed on portraying the MedCom's services as less of a "process" (akin to Arbitration) and more as a "useful tool for editors". On "parties": a brief discussion took place on the Committee mailing list shortly after your changes which largely agreed with them but which, insofar as I can ascertain, didn't support referring to involved editors as anything other than "parties." On that basis, I'm reluctant to drop that word choice for now; on the plus side, it does provide some consistency with other areas of RfM. I've not yet worked on your point that encouraging smaller party lists might reduce the number of requests scuppered due to the disagreement of only one party, but it is an excellent one that I will probably return to in a while. AGK 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost
Because of a long-term dispute on, I recently filed an arbitration request. There are both content and conduct problems on both sides of the dispute, which is why I didn't come here first. However, a couple of the declining arbitrators have suggested that we do that. Could a member of the Mediation Committee review my request and chime in on whether they think those arbitrators are correct that this would be a more-appropriate venue? It's due to close on 7/10 at 03:30UTC, so if you can get to it in the very near future, I'd appreciate it. :-) Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Signing so that the archival bot will remove this thread. AGK   14:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed WP:Requests for mediation/Pending page
I've just reverted the page Requests for mediation/Pending to an earlier version, as it appears that a badly formed mediation request had caused the mediation bot to blank the page. I hope I did the right thing. LK (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Signing so that the archival bot will remove this thread. AGK   14:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle Bronze Age Alphabets
Hey, I was a new user, although as a result of this experience, I have discontinued all editing capacities and reverted solely to mitigated consumption. I say mitigated because my brief foray into editing severely affected my belief in the quality of relevant information available on Wikipedia (even as a pre-substantive collection of sources).

After posting OR on the Middle Bronze Age alphabets page in the summer (I wasn't really aware of Wiki's guidelines... read the page and you'll see why), my edits were later reverted. I finally figured out how to use the discussion pages and also read up a bit more on guidelines, verifiability, and OR. However, after trying to meaningfully contribute to the aforementioned page, every single edit I made at any point thereafter was reverted virtually immediately by a single overly zealous editor.

I thought I had posted a request for mediation some weeks ago, but as it does not show up on this page or My Contributions page, I feel it relevant to do so now. My complaint with the aforementioned page is it's total failure to meet any standards of verifiability. After lengthy discussions with the said editor on his, my, and the page's discussion pages, I finally gave up trying to add or subtract anything. This particular editor reverted all changes that were not his own and subsequently told me off, including that Arabic (as an addition to a multi-lingual table) was irrelevant - though I cited multiple sources. He told me that including permanent links to a reputed etymology dictionary, that stood contrary to presently uncited claims on the page, was dictionary trawling and inappropriate.

I feel that this process is highly asymmetric and, given the research I had to do to no avail re: editing the Wiki page, incredibly irrelevant to my own personal learning process. This editor, I have subsequently noted, created the page, added all the original content that has not been cited, reverted every (even the appropriate) changes and additions of citations that I made, but has not edited it since I stopped editing myself. I see this as a vindictive process, and one pursued by an overly zealous, under qualified, and personally vindictive person (wonderful use of adjectives). I am formally requesting mediation, though I will only be sporadically checking my account. Thank you, and sincerely, Michael Sheflin. Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Signing so that the archival bot will remove this thread. AGK   14:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square
An SPA created this by hand. I moved it to the correct namespace, at Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. Someone figure out how to do this, because the page warns me to not do it by hand. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix my contribution?
Found here: Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber can someone fix this? Inclusionist (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of the record: this matter is now resolved. AGK 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to fix the box
Currently Requests for mediation/Top reads this way:

Which doesn't make a lot of sense.


 * 1) There is no "File request" button. Village_pump_(technical)
 * 2) There is no "text in the box" on both Firefox and Internet Explorer

I suggest changing the template to read this way:

Inclusionist (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How curious. The only explanation I have for why the box is not behaving as instructed is that Extension:Inputbox is indeed broken, as you've suggested on the village pump. Anyway, I've implemented a temporary patch-solution for the MedCom's inputbox, based largely on what you've suggested above, to ensure that these technical hitches aren't making it impossible for those not familiar with the RfM system to file a request. (As an aside, the problems with the box may go a substantial distance to explaining why the Committee has received very few requests of late!) Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for suggesting the explanatory text amendment. AGK 14:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I notify everyone?
This page does not explain how I notify everyone, about this request. Inclusionist (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that your case has been rejected, but for future reference: add  {{subst: Requests for mediation/OpenNote|case name{{))}} to the user_talk page of each party. I will update the instructions to avoid other editors experiencing similar confusion. AGK 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat-Balyogeshwar
I created and saved Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat-Balyogeshwar at 07:19, February 7, 2009. The other party agreed to participate. However it doesn't appear on Requests for mediation. Is their a way of purging or refreshing the page, or just letting folks know it's there?  Will Beback   talk    06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears and disappears - maybe it's my browser.   Will Beback    talk    18:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually use Requests for mediation/Pending when looking for new cases - I think it's the page that is transcluded onto the main request page. I know I've had problems previously with purging the main page. I hope that helps for the future.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
I noticed that there hasn't been any action on Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church since about Jan 29th. The template says to wait two weeks, then to put in an inquiry here. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see the talk page (where the mediation takes place) then see that Shell Kinney started the mediation on 16 Feb. Hope that helps!  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, it started less than 24 hours before >.>  wonder why it didn't show my my watchlist.  Oh well, thanks!  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no updates while we are at it. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this case be accepted?
A dispute over the use of fair use sports logos on season, specific game, and rivalry pages has been going on since 10 December 2008. The better part of a megabyte worth of text discussion has taken place on the issue. Discussion locales:
 * (inception) Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_39
 * (RfC) Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos
 * (MedCab request) Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos

As noted, the original discussion began on 10 December 2008. The RfC began on 22 December 2008. After a total of six weeks of debate, a query was put before ArbCom on 26 January 2009 as to the next steps to take. ArbCom recommended seeking mediation.

A MedCab request was made at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos on 5 February 2009. Since then, 7 other cases have been put before and accepted by MedCab. This case remains unaccepted.

Looking at Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection, the first reason is not all parties agreeing to mediation. 91 unique usernames have commented on the RfC. How would MedCom approach this? Do all 91 have to agree to mediation? Just the "significant" contributors (and how do we judge that)?

The same resource also indicates a common reason for rejection is the issue is not appropriate for mediation. This is not a content issue. It's also not a conduct issue. It's a policy issue, and affects literally thousands of articles. Would this issue be accepted for mediation based on this?

If these obstacles are surmountable, how should this proceed? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per this diff, it appears that the Mediation Cabal mediator is recommending formal mediation by the committee. cmadler (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite truly, I don't think an informal cabalist is the best solution for deciding this, as I have no power to implement any decision that I make, and I cannot seem to bring anyone toward a compromise. I hate to pass the buck, but I think I'm in over my head.  My recommendation, though is that this potential guideline not be implemented, and that these conflicts be decided case-by-case, to better enable good exceptions to pass and prevent WP:CREEP.  Tealwisp (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting question. Many of the contributors to the RfC will be germane to the dispute at hand - they will merely have commented as neutral observers. Having said that, there will no doubt be a significant number of "parties" to the mediation. How about you get a list of the parties who have a serious interest in the dispute together? This would be helpful in deciding whether mediation would be appropriate. If there were 91 parties, then I would probably suggest that it's too many to get any kind of result. Of the people who would be a party to the dispute, all would need to accept the mediation for it to go ahead. Anyway, get a list of names together and then we can take it from there. No need to file a case at this stage.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a considerable number of significant parties. There's 33 with more than 10 edits to the RfC: User:BQZip01 (260), User:Hammersoft (123), User:J Milburn (74), User:Black Kite (65), User:Oren0 (48), User:Ndenison (47), User:Mr.Z-man (45), User:2008Olympian (43), User:ESkog (43), User:Cmadler (40), User:CH52584 (34), User:Masem (30), User:Kusma (29), User:Sherool (29), User:Stifle (24), User:Rtr10 (22), User:Tedmoseby (22), User:Andrwsc (21), User:Seraphimblade (21), User:Ikip (20), User:Geni (19), User:Tealwisp (18), User:DHowell (16), User:Resolute (15), User:Mastrchf91 (14), User:Rspeer (14), User:Cardsplayer4life (12), User:CIreland (12), User:Canis Lupus (11), User:Paulmcdonald (11), User:Wiggy! (11), User:Jheald (10), User:Johntex (10).
 * That's a "list of names", but I'm not sure what sort of list you want. Should I poll all 33 of these and see if they are interested or not? If they are not interested, do we need their consent for mediation? If we do not, are they excluded from mediation deliberations? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd exclude Tealwisp, who only came in as a Mediation Cabal mediator, and therefore, I'd argue is not a party to this dispute. cmadler (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call myself a concerned party, as I don't normally edit around sports, but here is a summary of the positionsthat I was given at the start of the mediation. As far as I can tell, there are three sides to this issue, plus my opinion that it be laid down, but I am decidedly a minority.  Tealwisp (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's too many people to get a good outcome if I'm being honest. We could start it and see, but as I said previously, we'd have to get everyones agreement.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request doesn't appear on main page
Hello, I've recently created a request for mediation (Requests for mediation/Republic of China) , but it hasn't been added to the main page by MediationBot. What should I do? Is it possible to add the page manually? Thanks, Laurent (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, we're having a problem with our bot. I've dealt with it now - unfortunately, I've had to reject the case as it hasn't gone through enough previous steps in dispute resolution.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your answer. I'm going to bring the issue to informal mediation instead. Regards, Laurent (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas
I understand that the Mediation Committee has accepted this case, however no mediator has actually chosen to take the case. The parties of the case are getting somewhat impatient, and I'm prepared to take this case at MedCab, as a fresh case. We have a procedural issue here, as MedCom has already accepted the case. I am wondering if MedCom could close the currently open case, and allow mediation to occur at MedCab. I have a feeling the parties just want to get DR happening as soon as possible, and I feel I'm fit to do the job. Will this be OK? Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Belated note: ✅. AGK 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"New requests" message
Can the "mediators" make the New requests section a little less obnoxious? Shouting in underlined red does not encourage the type of climate conducive to resolving disputes. If it's such a problem that people edit the section, move it to a protected subpage and transclude that here. On another note, saying "please" does not cost anything. Skomorokh 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we can :-) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure if it would break the bot(!) so I'll make some enquiries. I think it needs to e in bold (and possibly in red so it's noticed, but I agree it could be a bit more friendly.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, I appreciate it. Mahalo, Skomorokh  18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a little more friendly:
 * {| width="100%" style="background: transparent; border: 1px solid silver;"


 * style="color: #4169e1; text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot.
 * style="color: #b22222; text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" |  Please don't list your case by hand ; the Committee has provided a Mediation request box for convenient listing above. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.)
 * }
 * Is that satisfactory, Skomorokhl? AGK 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that satisfactory, Skomorokhl? AGK 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding?
I have suggested to an editor that we take an accusation they made against me to mediation. My offer was rejected with the retort "No sir, secret kangaroo courts are not valid on Wikipedia." Nobody need agree to mediation however the retort suggests the editor does not understand how mediation works. Is there a mediator willing to help clarify a misunderstanding here? Obviously no mediation on the actual accusation can occur unless the editor agrees. Please reply to my page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If an editor has made a comment towards you which you disagree with, the matter is exclusively one of user conduct, rather than of article content. On that basis, a case examining whether the editor's comment towards you was valid could not be taken to formal Mediation. AGK 13:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My question has not been answered. The matter is possibly not exclusively one of user conduct. Following discussion, I and the other editor have summarized our points of agreement and disagreement that are irreconcilable. Those would provide a natural entry to a mediation. A mediator can of course decide to reject the issue or recommend that it go to WP:WQA or WP:ANI, but it is inappropriate to judge the actual issue here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You said that "I have suggested to an editor that we take an accusation they made against me to mediation." To me, you are identifying the accusation made by the second party as the issue to be mediated. If I have not misinterpreted you, then my comment stands: no mediation could take place. This Committee handles only content disputes, without exception. The content dispute underlying your discussion with the second party may be suitable for mediation—formal or otherwise—but you haven't asked me about that, so I haven't addressed it. Am I making sense, or do you suspect I continue to misinterpret your query? AGK 00:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reopening a case?
Hello, I've listed a request last month regarding the Republic of China article. It's been rejected because we didn't try other lower level dispute resolution methods. Since then, we've asked for a third opinion, request for comment and went throught the mediation cabal. We've also discussed the issue further in the talk page but without reaching a consensus. So is it possible to reopen the case at Requests for mediation/Republic of China? And, if so, how should I do so - is it enough to just remove the "rejected case" template? Thanks, Laurent (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Refile the case with the title Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2 - I've had a quick look and I would accept the case if all parties agreed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've refiled the case. Laurent (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 43 of the Rejected Requests has issues
Requests for mediation/Rejected/43 look like a template problem A NRM Researcher (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Our previous chair was a lazy Welshman prone to silliness like this :). I've drawn the matter to his attention so hopefully he'll sort it out. If not, I'll get round to tidying it up when I have a spare minute. Well spotted, and thanks for letting us know. Regards, AGK   16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Turpan
I'm withdrawing WT:Requests for mediation/Turpan; I don't know what the formal procedure is but feel free to remove it or whatever you guys need to do. Thanks, rʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ AGK   10:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere
I have a discussion going on User:U21980's talk page that you might want to look at. We have agreed that neither he nor I should write the articles, but rather make a good faith effort to find someone mutually acceptable to us both to write them, preferably objective who neither knows nor cares about the referents. Please help us to do this. I'm not sure that this article describes the type of mediation we need. We are looking for an author and not to write them ourselves. Please point me in the right direction. Where can we find a disinterested qualified author? Chrisrus (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response, which was because this page is not widely monitored, even by the active mediators. In the first instance, you should file for the assistance of the Mediation Cabal. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 10:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancelling a mediation request
I would ask (if this isn't already in place) that you guys incorporate some way of being able to CANCEL a mediation request. I didn't intend to ask for formal mediation, I wanted an informal mediation. I allowed this request to linger as I saw no way of cancelling it. Also, since you mention an administrator would best be suited to handle this issue, is their some Wikilink that could have been included to administrators or is it something I would have to search for, myself? --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (Moved from Requests for mediation/Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland), and fixed indentation.) If you mistakenly file a request for mediation, or if for some other reason you need to withdraw the request, simply strike your initial agreement to mediate (as the editor who filed the request, your signature would automatically be added under "Parties' agreement to mediate"). The "Accept" comment and your signature, once stricken, should be followed by "Withdraw request", an explanation if possible, and your signature. The next member of the Mediation Committee to review the request would then close the request as withdrawn. I hope this clarifies things. In order to prevent future confusion, I've added something about this to WP:RFM/G. Thanks for your input! AGK  [&bull; ] 11:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I will keep this in mind if I (unfortunately) need to request mediation in the future. --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/43
Requests for mediation/Rejected/43 seemed not to have been subst'ed before being deleted. I temporarily restored (and then re-deleted) the articles on the page in order to subst: them there, since that seems to be the normal archiving process. Just FYI. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well-caught, and thanks! AGK  [&bull; ] 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics dispute
I wonder if an intervention by the committee might help prevent this dispute ending up at Arbcom and becoming an even-greater dramafest, complete with blocks and bans. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't usually intervene unilaterally, because mediation relies on the parties being receptive enough to compromise to independently ask for mediation. Moreover, why on earth would we want to get knee-deep in… what's over there? ;) AGK  [&bull; ] 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Hey all,

I am looking for advice, there currently is a huge dispute at the articles Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers this is spilling onto loads of other articles at least 50+ articles because the decision on those two articles directly affect loads of other articles, categorises, templates etc.

So far i have been working through the dispute resolution process i was goign to put a request for comment live but we started making progress in sandbox version, this is now just failing again, and most editors on both sides are basically admitting to goign to change the articles once full protection ends.

Nither side fo the argument is really willing to comprise, the problem lies with the sources they are all over the place. I have tried to mediate teh sandbox to version acceptable by all by using reliable sources and present both sides in teh article but either side will remove anything that does not go with what there pov.

What i want to know is can i birng this dispute here rather than waste a month or so on request for comment that is alomst garanteed to fail, i fear even this wont be enough and arbcom will need to rule on it.

if you look here User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft you can get mroe information on this dispute, as i say it invovles over 50+ aritcles and there is probally some i have not found that are affected by this as editors keep changing anything reference rangers to Newco Rangers and via versa, and ther eis more than 60 editors invovled in teh dispute.

I am just sick of the dispute and rather just takea back seat and no longer be invovled and pass it onto someone else to do hence why i like to know i i can bring this dipute here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thread moved from WT:MC to here. -- AGK [•] 23:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there are more articles involved in this dispute than are listed, there has been edits changing back and forth on season articles for the third division clubs and league so thats another ten articles, plus any player that transfers or is remotely linked to the club has also seen some form of dispute over wording therefore the scope is actually very large. Reliable sources are mixed with the club, the SFA, SPL and SFL treating them as the same club but a different company. Mediation of some kind is required if this is filed would it likely be accepted as a case.Blethering  Scot  00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ew can you post me all these other aritcle you have found so i can list them because it really needs ot be shown that the higher up in wikipeida have to get invovled now and make the decision, a dispute normal only affect a articl or two but this many articles is unacceptable Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:DRN? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it failed read the mydraft page i have it details everything so far, this needs formal mediation well i say it needs arbcom to make the ruling because neither side will agree Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * have a look at this section User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft it details the current dispute resolution as i say the next stage is request for comment but since that is not binding it will fail-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can file a request, unless you think it highly unlikely that others will agree to mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * there is a chance some might not agree but i suspect most will even those oppose to certian things as they did agree with DRN, i will fill it out later need to doa bit extra work to take it here-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Empathetic Logic Analysis
I,, had made a request for mediation as an editor. noted my submission to WP for deletion. When I offered to provide the information that s/he requested, s/he noted that s/he deleted my emails providing more unread. I applied for mediation but was rejected by the Bot for reasons that do not appear relate my issue. Can anyone help? Thanks!
 * This is not a case that requires mediation. Generally, there needs to be a lot of discussion on the article's talk page, as well as previous dispute resolution steps. Lexein deleted the e-mails because "you have implied that it may contain restricted, secret, or embargoed information to which I have no right."
 * Wikipedia can only use published sources, and every piece of data within an article needs to be sourced, including whatever is added to the article to bolster its notability.
 * Take the advice from the Articles for Deletion. If you can prove that ELA is notable, using published, reliable sources, you shouldn't have any troubles. Bear in mind that WP's threshold for notability is usually higher than people first think.
 * This is going to be difficult, because you have a Conflict of interest. That's not always a bad thing, but it may be harder to let go of the article if it doesn't pass Articles for Deletion. --Xavexgoem (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Update only
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 99.129.112.89 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New Chairperson
For the public record:


 * 1) Under the new mediation policy ratified in September, the Chairman must be reconfirmed every six months, starting with a first confirmation on or before 18 March 2013.
 * 2) We began this reconfirmation last week, and during it WGFinley decided not to ask for reconfirmation.
 * 3) As a result, we have appointed as our Chair.
 * 4) WGF will step down on 17 March 2013, at the end of his term as Chair, and Phil will Chair the committee from 18 March.
 * 5) During WGF's extended absence over the previous few months, I've been acting in his stead. I won't need to serve as acting Chair from 18 March, and (as Phil will probably be re-familiarising himself with the Chairman's duties in advance of his term) probably from before that date too.

Any comments, concerns, or requests for assistance and advice that would previously be sent to WGF or myself should go to PhilKnight, the new Chairperson, from 18 March. The usual references to the Chair's username will be updated on that day.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 12:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver
I would like to start a formal mediation, however there are few things: a) "The parties to the dispute are contesting the relevant content with genuine motives to better the involved articles;" - I'm not convinced that it is the case regarding the opposing editor. b) "Every party is approaching mediation open-mindedly, with a view to compromising (for no mediation can be successful without compromise by all sides)." - I'm not ready to compromise (self-check). Ryanspir (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

State of Mediation
Is this committee even active? I see no active cases, no requests, only rejected requests. I was just curious about whether people turned to this group for solutions because there seems to be a low level (or no) activity at all. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Newjerseyliz, the committee is still active, but we haven't had any requests for a while. We're in discussions with the folks over at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about them passing us some of the more difficult to resolve cases. PhilKnight (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the prompt and civil reply, PhilKnight! I'm still working out the tangled web of noticeboards, dispute resolution, Talk page debates, ArbCom, RfC. It seems like a lot of layers of administration to work out problems and it's not very clear where an editor should go if they have a problem. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Name wrong/link not working
Just want to make sure someone notices that Requests for mediation/NPOV in Austrian Economics/libertarian bios isn't properly named or linked on the main page here. I did something wrong. Probably that slash after economics. OOPS! Perhaps it could be changed to a hypen or "&" sign? I don't want to compound by trying to correct it, per the note on the page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * , now moved to Requests for mediation/Austrian economics. AGK  [•] 10:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Schiller Institute
The mediation bot offered May 31 as a tenative date for an answer on our mediation request or at the very least for involved editors to respond by. As it is the 3rd and as it seems the wait is keeping an edit war at bay, or the involved editors from taking any other action at dispute resolution, I respectfully request a decision. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have agreement from all parties to proceed. The case has been accepted. Sunray (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Search box missing. Test.
Page says "Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box on the right." but this isn't true; there is no search box. Did this break it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases has search.

Maybe this would work:

-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 17:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It works, but it would be better if it excluded Rejected ones, or if there were two search boxes, one of which excluded Rejected ones. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 17:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Next Step?
What is the next step on United States? Do we wait for the selection of a mediator, and will he or she open pages for us to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unregistered Editors
I see that one of the requirements to accept a case for mediation is agreement of a majority of the identified editors. What is the situation with unregistered editors (IP addresses)? If an article and its talk page have unregistered editors, (1) are they among those of whom a majority should agree to mediation; (2) do they participate in the mediation; (3) if the answer to 2 is yes, how are changes to their IP addresses dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Stuck Request
An editor has attempted to file a Request for Mediation, and nothing has happened. The requester is User:Z07x10 and the subject is Eurofighter Typhoon. The problem may be that the same editor filed a previous request for mediation about the same article about a year and a half ago, which was declined, so that now the bot may not be handling it as a new request. Can someone please look into it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lesson Learned
If mediation has been requested twice with respect to the same topic, adding "2" to the title may be necessary. This may be the first time that the MedCom has encountered this problem. The ArbCom has encountered it before, because sometimes the same subject area results in continuing misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Lift (force)
The status of the mediation of this article is showing in the front display as "No mediator", but the mediation was closed as resolved successfully. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bot put it back on the page right after removed it. I also notice neither this or Requests for mediation/Arab Winter is listed in the archives. I think I see how to fix this, but I'm not sure if I should, seeing I am not a mediator, and I was involved in one of these cases. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks to for removing the case from the index. I have also added these two closed cases to Archive 28. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned subpage
Would someone familiar with processes here please work out what to do with Requests for mediation/Ununpentium aka Element 115 which was created 6 April 2015. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging this. Easiest was just to delete it, which I now have. AGK  [•] 21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check if this request was entered correctly
Requests for mediation/The Wikipedia article about Oathkeepers is repleat with politically biased and false descriptions about the Oathkeepers organization. was recently created by a new editor. I am not familiar enough with the request process to confirm if it was done correctly, but it looks like it hasn't been transcluded to /Pending so I presume not. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Help needed
An editor contacted Wikimedia asking about the status of a request for mediation. Their attempt to create a request is here Requests_for_mediation/Multiverse_edits_deleted

I'm not sure how requests are supposed to be formatted so I don't know how to help them. Could someone pitch in?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. The request format has been corrected and the case rejected for additional work at lower-level dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)