Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/41

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Salvia lyrata

[edit]
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 09:53, March 13 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. StationNT5Bmedia (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. First Light (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Salvia Lyrata

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]

I've been in correspondence with local organizations concerning warnings of the hazards Salvia Lyrata poses to livestock. After posting the correspondence on the discussion pages, several links have been deleted, and further correspondence will need to be encouraged, although the deletion of material in my opinion is vandalism. I've invited originators of the article, since my edits have only been contributed after the creation of the article in 2006. However, deletions of all warnings about the hazards of the "frost weed" included external links that were part of ongoing edits. I somehow doubt that the current edits by user:First Light are not obsolete with the density, toxicity, and domestication studies at Texas A&M, and the local discussion between organizations native to the Texas Gulf Coast, where Salvia Lyrata is an annual early sprouting broadleaf weed. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Example link 2.
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Hazards posed to grazing livestock

Salvia Lyrata has been identified as a nitrogen accumulator, meaning that active & dormant stages of the organic composition are high, and can cause a toxic release of chemical composition within the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants & undulates grazing in fields during late winter & early spring, when the "frost weed", Salvia Lyrata is an early sprouting broadleaf weed with a tall central chute that pokes above the canopy of existing dormant forages, during the season when fodder has not yet began growing. The plant can cause an accute colic resulting in the death of large animals, and further study may show other mortality rates in herd or wild animal populations that find the weed in pastures before grasses are amply sustained. Hay production revolves around the annual cycle of these plants, where hay storage & supply become exhausted usually before the summer months when grasses again propogate. It is the early sprouting of the "cancer weed", Salvia Lyrata that attracts consumption. The flowering properties of Salvia Lyrata are not an issue in this mediation. The characteristics of the wildflower are similar to purple sage, but it is splitting hairs to define the difference between Salvia Lyrata as a weed, or wildflower. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issue 2.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Refuse. This is not an appropriate case for mediation. StationNT5Bmedia has been 1.) edit-warring to insert original research that has no references and 2.) adding false references when asked to provide citations. An admin has now warned him that this is a blockable offense if he continues.[1] I tried to help StationNT5Bmedia by searching Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and jstor.org for anything to support his claims, but could find nothing. Looking at the user's talk page and archives, I think he needs some sort of mentoring by a third party to understand how Wikipedia works. (p.s. User:Rkitko, an admin, is now trying to help at User talk:StationNT5Bmedia#Salvia_lyrata). First Light (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James T Kirk

[edit]
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 11:53, March 17 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Marfoir (talk · contribs), Marfoir
  2. Arcayne (talk · contribs) Arcayne
  3. THF (talk · contribs) THF
  4. Cool_Hand_Luke (talk · contribs) Cool Hand Luke
  5. Erikeltic (talk · contribs) Erikeltic
  6. Globular_Cluster1 (talk · contribs) Globular Cluster1
  7. Bignole (talk · contribs) Bignole (removed himself from the debate)
  8. EEMIV (talk · contribs) EEMIV (removed himself from the debate)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]


Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1. The heart of the issue is whether or not fan-films (regardless of quality) should be given equal weight as studio portrayals of fan fiction. There are currently three primary competing ideas regarding this:

1) Only studio portrayals should be listed within the infobox and notable fan-film portrayals should be listed in the "cultural impact" portion of the biography; 2) All actors to have portrayed the role sufficiently (including spoofs) should be included (like imdb.com in order to be neutral; 3) only studio portrayals and fan films with actors that are determined worthy are within the infobox and biography (case in point, James Cawley playing Captain Kirk). In my opinion, these issues go beyond one biography for Captain Kirk and have the potential to effect many fictional character biographies. Currently, most of the debate is between position 1 and 3 and Arcayne has suggested mediation to resolve the issue. Marfoir (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Marfoir (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree. This is nine editors against one on a yes-or-no issue without an intermediate stage possible, and is really an issue of WP:CONSENSUS, not mediation. The fact that so many editors are dropping out of this shows how WP:TEDIOUS this issue is. THF (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Erikeltic (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. --EEMIV (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

[edit]
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 18:23, March 17 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Tenmei (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Teeninvestor (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I need to know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future. Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive in the context of this talk page. When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, he/she asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page.
If mediation determines that Teeninvestor's views are justified, I will stand corrected. I will not hesitate to apologize for my error; and I will be guided by what I will have learned from this dispute resolution process.
Illustrative example: diff
If mediation determines that Teeninvestor's views are justified, I will stand corrected. I will not hesitate to apologize for my error; and I will be guided by what I will have learned from this dispute resolution process.
  • Issue 3. Teeninvestor denies that WP:V incorporates WP:RSUE, which includes additional burdens when the edits rely solely on Chinese sources.
Illustrative example: diff
If mediation determines that Teeninvestor's views are justified, I will stand corrected. I will not hesitate to apologize for my error; and I will be guided by what I will have learned from this dispute resolution process.
  • Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which has evolved, long-term warriors are toxic. The battlefield conditions require that academic integrity becomes a priority because any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This non-standard context affects everything about what would otherwise seem to be a relatively minor topic.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree Teeninvestor (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamsters

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 03:24, March 10 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. HexaChord (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Bluescreenofdef (talk · contribs)
  3. WebHamster (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1. Both parties have a long history of dispute, ranging back to at least February 2008, with permanent violation of WP:CIVIL on both sides [2] [3] as well as accusations of WP:COI and WP:OWN from one side [4] and WP:VAN from the other [5].
  • Issue 2. The dispute mainly is related to content about UK rock band The Hamsters. Since the band is not widely known - at least not to me - I hope an expert can solve if the disputed content is notable or not. Note that WP:3O has denied the case. [6] Also note that there are several open issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:SPS.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

General background

[edit]
  • Based on memory alone, at some point in January 2008 I made an anti-vandal edit against an IP user inserting his real name into an article. This IP user then manifested itself on 29 January 2008 as Bluescreenofdef (talk · contribs). Since then, even after a break of around a year, this user has used his editing privileges to stalk, harass and annoy me. Every single edit he has ever made in article space is Hamsters related, in the whole time he has been an editor he has not written one original word in article space (sorry, he did change [[Whisky Mac]] to [[Whisky Mac(band)]] (sic), so actually "(band)" is the only complete word he has ever typed into article space). All he has done is revert and delete text. Every single character he has deleted in article space was typed by myself and no-one else. He has been following my edits round and reverting them and deleting them using excuses such as WP:COI (for which he has been unable to demonstrate any evidence whatsoever), WP:CONSENSUS when he is the only other editor affected. Although some of his reversions and deletions do have merit, when taken as a whole his pattern of contributions point to an agenda to disrupt, stalk and generally cause trouble. This I believe is being done for the simple reason that the band's drummer shares the same name as his and for some reason it aggrieves him. There is little point in me producing diffs as the trouble is with his whole contribution history which shows a very obvious pattern. --WebHamster 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Hamsters

[edit]
  • The Hamsters. User:WebHamster consistently adds information using Primary sources such as here in violation of Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor does himself no favours by quoting deprecated pages on primary sources. Had he gone to WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources he would have seen the sentence "This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." This is indeed the case with the majority of sources in the article being secondary sources. The only primary sources used are to demonstrate historical fact, i.e. why the band first started performing, as demonstrated in the above diff, with the best source being the band themselves, and to support claims made by the band themselves, e.g. they claim to have performed more than 4,000 shows. All of which is immaterial to the case in hand and just demonstrates the above editor's disingenuousness and misdirection from the big picture which has caused the need for this mediation. --WebHamster 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think using a bands own website to cite how popular and tremendous that band is, is in the spirit of WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. It is gratuitous self promoting articles like this that need to be purged from wikipedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference used was to demonstrate why the band started, not how popular they were. Logic dictates that they became popular otherwise they would still be there in the local pubs or in another band. This just evidences that BSOD does not understand the rules he is quoting in his constant wikilawyering. --WebHamster 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round the Horne

[edit]

The above statement is only true if you ignore this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the above diff there were 4 people involved, 2 for delete, 2 for inclusion as the article's history demonstrates. Once again BSOD demonstartes his non-understanding of WP:CONSENSUS --WebHamster 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Road Blues

[edit]
Major characteristics? You mean the fact that they are all notable bands who have performed cover versions of this classic and timeless blues song? --WebHamster 01:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the above mentioned article it should be pointed out that there are two parties involved in this mediation yet BSOD seems to ignore his own rhetoric whilst simultaneously breaching WP:3RR. Usually in matters of mediation the status quo is usually observed, i.e. leave the article the way it was before the edit war commenced. --WebHamster 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If User:WebHamster truly believed the above he could probably explain why it is he signed on this mediation at 03:34 (per here) and then reverted to his favoured version 20 mins later at 03:50 (per here). Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact of course that you also made 2 reversions post your agreement to mediate, the second one being in violation of WP:3RR. --WebHamster 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to ignore that fact. You yourself described above the need to keep "the status quo". Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I was attempting to do, yet your 3 reverts prevented the article going back to the way it was before the 'war' started. Is this another term you use yet don't know the meaning of? --WebHamster 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamsters are a cover act that play over peoples songs professionally in a way that makes them a living 3D jukebox. Not that there is anything wrong with that, there are many thousands of bands like this making people happy around the world. However every other name in this list is a signed major label original artist who has re interpreted the song as a means of artistic expression. This article would be extremely long if we included every bar band that has covered this song. Let's keep it interpretations that have been widely distributed and commented upon. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is totally irrelevant in Wikipedia terms... your dislike of a band you've never heard, the fact you think they're a cover band (they're not) and what you think is music expression. I rather doubt you've ever heard The Hamsters' version of Crossroads so are in no position to gauge what is or what isn't the result of a "3D jukebox". In addition it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what a "cover band" is, or indead what a "cover" is. The list in this article only states one criteria, that they be notable. Whether you like it or not they are notable, both in wikipedia terms and in musical terms. The only thing that can be supposed from your specious and disruptive arguments is that you have a personal agenda this in turn makes your comments NPOV. --WebHamster 10:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. WebHamster 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject, - We expect all cases that come here to have done through previous methods of dispute resolution. Before accepting a case, we need to see content RfC's and attempts to resolve the dispute with the mediation cabal. This hasn't happened in this case.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Miami Masters

[edit]
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 13:29, April 4 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. yosef1987 (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Tennis_expert (talk · contribs)
  3. Alonsornunez (talk · contribs)
  4. Saviour73 (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • There is an official tournament name (other than the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to use, despite of the tournament's location, and that's in the performance tables; the problem has been going on for over 3 month now.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. AlonsornunezComments 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Saviour73 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree. Tennis expert (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Residual Stress

[edit]
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 14:42, April 15 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Misterlobat (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Wizard191 (talk · contribs)
  3. Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
  • talk page.
  • notes with reverted edits.
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • edit war on external links.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • other similar link left in place as "acceptable" to TWI

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Misterlobat (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Wizard191 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
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 parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yong (Tang Dynasty)

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 16:45, April 20 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  • Note by Nlu (talk · contribs) (filing party): this list includes users who made at least one comment in the current dispute and in the last time that there was a policy discussion on this issue. Not all of the users who made comments might necessarily be considered "involved parties" per se nor would they necessarily want to be involved, but I am including them out of an abundance of caution)
  1. Nlu (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Mattisse (talk · contribs)
  3. Awadewit (talk · contribs)
  4. Victuallers (talk · contribs)
  5. Lampman (talk · contribs)
  6. Benlisquare (talk · contribs)
  7. Benjwong (talk · contribs)
  8. The Little Blue Frog (talk · contribs)
  9. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs)
  10. Yaan (talk · contribs)
  11. Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
  12. Squidfryerchef (talk · contribs)
  13. hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)
  14. Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs)
  15. Danaman5 (talk · contribs)
  16. YellowMonkey (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]

(The discussion below isn't per se part of this part of the dispute, but as it was a recent discussion on the same issue)

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Whether ancient/medieval (Song Dynasty or earlier) traditional Chinese history sources (e.g., the Twenty-Four Histories and the Zizhi Tongjian) may be relied on as sources in article creation.
  • Whether a modern source must be cited in articles relying on the said traditional sources.
  • Whether the original traditional source or the modern source should be cited when the modern source simply relays the factual assertion in the ancient source.
  • Whether the onus is on the proponents of the use of modern sources to show that modern sources exist providing sufficient coverage on the subject article, or whether onus is on the proponents of ancient sources to show that no modern sources exist providing sufficient coverage on the subject of the article.
  • Whether existing Chinese historical articles that rely on these sources (including implicit reliance without citing any sources) should be deleted.
  • Whether a rejection of these sources will necessarily require the analogous rejections of sources of similar age of all geographical origins and, if not, whether the rejection of these sources creates a systemic bias.
  • Whether, if the answer to the above is "yes," whether Wikipedia should remove all articles relying on sources of similar age of all geographical origins.
  • Whether there should be policy-change discussions to modify WP:RS (including the subpolicy of WP:PSTS) and WP:OR involved in determining these questions.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Nlu (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Victuallers Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree--Danaman5 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Disagree (see talk page for comment) Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject - As a prerequisite to formal mediation, we ask that reasonable attempts are made at lower levels of dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment and informal mediation before request formal mediation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and Leeds Festivals

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 12:37, April 21 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Example (talk · contribs), Reue
  2. Example2 (talk · contribs) 81.132.197.177
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
  • Example link 1. Discussion
  • Example link 2. User's talk page notification
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1. User continually re-adds 2 paragraphs which have been disputed both in chat and through edits as they appear to be un-neutral and unsourced.
  • Issue 2.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Reue (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject - As a prerequisite to formal mediation, we ask that reasonable attempts are made at lower levels of dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment and informal mediation before request formal mediation.
For the Mediation Committee,' Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Republic of China

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 18:25, April 23 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Laurent1979 (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Eeeeeewtw (talk · contribs)
  3. Liu Tao (talk · contribs)
  4. Readin (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Whether the demonym(s) of ROC citizens is Taiwanese OR Taiwanese and Chinese OR Taiwanese and "Chinese citizens residing abroad" (per the ROC constitution).
  • Whether the capital of the ROC is Tapei or Nanjing.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Laurent (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Readin (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Liu Tao (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Eeeeeewtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Reject - As a prerequisite to formal mediation, we ask that reasonable attempts are made at lower levels of dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment and informal mediation before request formal mediation.
For the Mediation Committee,' Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Independent

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 01:35, April 27 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. SlamDiego (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Eleland (talk · contribs)
  3. Nickhh (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Is the term “compact” to be used as an objective description of the newspaper The Independent.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Apologies, but the issue as set out above slightly misses the actual point under dispute in terms of article content. The issue is in fact about using the term “compact” to describe the newspaper’s format, not the paper itself. A subtle difference perhaps, but it counts. In addition SlamDiego has not simply been arguing that the term is “not objective”, but has been removing it altogether on the basis of a much stronger assertion – that using it is a breach of WP:NPOV; while they insist on retaining a term which is lacking just as much objectivity, namely “tabloid”. The actual issue is – should the word “compact” be given equal billing to “tabloid” when describing the newspaper’s format, such that both terms are noted as alternatives, as they are in real world sources; or should the former be excluded in favour of the latter? --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. SlamDiego←T 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. <eleland/talkedits> 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree (qualified, see talk page) --Nickhh (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline. There has not been significant attempts at earlier methods of dispute resolution such as a content request for comment or informal mediation so this case is not going to be taken by the committee at this time.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This can now be closed. Articles split and moved between:

Hiberniantears (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the Baltic states

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 23:08, April 29 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Hiberniantears (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. John Carter (talk · contribs)
  3. Dojarca (talk · contribs)
  4. Example (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
  • A look at this search string suggests that various issues directly and indirectly related to the article have been going around for some time now (I searched "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of the Baltic states" if the link is broken).
Comment added by User:Martintg:
To clarify, there have been two previous cases back in 2007:
  1. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states
  2. and tangentially related Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia
The issues were resolved back then after a major rewrite and there has been no disputes in Occupation of the Baltic states since, until today.
Comment added by User:Martintg:
This is not entirely correct. There are discussions arising out of the issues of 2007, but these were resolved and there has been no real disputation through 2008 and no discussion at all since November 2008
Nothing has been resolved. The article stayed (and still stays) in a highly biased state.--Dojarca (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In the immortal words of President Colbert, reality has a bias towards facts. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Review the balance of the article as it concerns a neutral point of view. User:Dojarca initially asked me to look at this article because his attempts to add the Russian/Soviet POV of the topic have met with little success. I have no prior involvement in the article prior to Dojarca asking me to review it. Further, I have previously had a contentious editing relationship with Dojarca, so his asking me to look at the article reflects some desire to receive a fair third party assessment, as we have previously disagreed on many points.
  • In reviewing the article for neutrality, also consider the scope. Currently, the article is a blanket discussion focusing on Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. User:John Carter, who's advice I solicited on the admin board noted above, suggested splitting the article into the following: Occupation of the Baltic States, the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and Question of Baltic States' status during the Soviet Union. This, or some other variation of multiple articles may help sort out the complexity of the article's subject.
  • There is an element of stonewalling prohibiting progress on this issue, akin to that currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. Not a point for mediation, but important to understanding the broader issue.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Decline. Martintg (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Decline. PetersV       TALK 02:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Decline.--Termer (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree.--Dojarca (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Decline.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline, due to not all parties agreeing to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee,' Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


==Hockey players==
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 05:00, May 4 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Eightofnine (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Lvivske (talk · contribs)
  3. Djsasso (talk · contribs)
  4. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
  • Example link 1. Reverted edits with explanations: [8], [9], etc.
  • Example link 2. Talk page
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1. Edit war on hockey players' nationalities; my explanation of the issue at another user's talk page.
  • Issue 2. Resolve disagreement as to whether information, such as uncertain nationality, is permitted in biographies per WP:LIVE.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Eightofnine (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. --Lvivske (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. --Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree --Djsasso (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline. For a case to be accepted, all parties must agree to the mediation - this is not the case here as one party disagrees.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Christina Hendricks

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 16:20, May 5 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Calvin93 (talk · contribs)
  2. Tabercil (talk · contribs)
  3. Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]
  • Example link 1. Attempted discussion with disputing editor Tabercil on his Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tabercil#Christina_Hendricks
  • Example link 2. Solicited third party opinion, which concurred with mine (Calvin 93) showing numerous sources for disputed point, who concurred and attempted to repost disputed content - which was again deleted by Tabercil
Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1. Whether the category of actress's medical procedures were relevant (as Calvin 93 and third party asserted) or "non-noteworthy controversy" as Tabercil claims
  • Issue 2. Whether sourcing for medical procedures was sufficient, or whether source was rejected simply because cite is a Wikipedia competitor
  • Issue 3. Whether administrator has right to censor and stifle discussion on a supposedly open-source forum regarding non-libelous news of interest to the subject actress. See report of Google hits on subject topic as detailed in Talk section cited above.

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Calvin93 Calvin93 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline. There has not been significant attempts at earlier methods of dispute resolution such as a content request for comment or informal mediation so this case is not going to be taken by the committee at this time.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Human Rights Foundation

[edit]
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a new request.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 13:36, May 14 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

[edit]
  1. Proofknow (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Pexise (talk · contribs)
Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit]


Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1: user Pexise has written libellous remarks about the Human Rights Foundation in the talk pages: "And they finance mercenary groups in Bolivia."

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Additional issue 1.
  • Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Proofknow (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
Decline. There has not been significant attempts at earlier methods of dispute resolution (such as a content request for comment or informal mediation), so this case is not going to be taken by the committee at this time.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ryan, may I ask, how long does a talk page section needs to get, and how many attempts at making other editors upheld Wikipedia policies, are needed for you to consider it? Furthermore, is there not a rather strict policy regarding inclusion of libellous material in Wikipedia?Proofknow (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/41&oldid=1142507753"