Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/11

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Songs To Wear Pants To 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 12:40, September 15, 2006 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated edit

On said page, a list of songs created pertaining to that article are listed. User, IrishGuy, continues to delete a paticular song called "What is Joppa Anyway?" off the list due to personal grudges against the content of the song, and not due to wikipeida guidelines. He has been asked why and not responded, yet continues to vandalize the page.

My not answering is a raging fallacy. You can see for yourself our entire conversaion right here. This is the owner of the website in question. He sent people from his site to stack the AfD vote, and when it didn't go his way, he again sent them to spam Wikipedia [1]. I have removed his spamlinks. That is all I have done. IrishGuy ^talk 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the AfD. Thanks. This user, again, just proved, is holding a grudge. His VANDALISM of the STWPT page is seperate from what happened to the article he deleted. There are NO spamlinks. He has yet to answer on THIS topic in question, yet I'm sure you can see that he's supplied many answers to everything else under the sun. Again, IrishGuy is holding a grudge. And linking to my discussion board, again, has NOTHING to do with this issue. You can badmouth me all you want.Drdunbar 15:44, 15 September 2006 (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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.
Disagree IrishGuy ^talk 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: The article in question has been deleted.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 13:44, September 16 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Ros Power
Trance or Daze
83.217.190.69

Articles involved edit

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

[2] mediation
[3] discussion

Issues to be mediated edit

The use of the term "Same Sex Couple" in the leader.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. Ros Power 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. 83.217.190.69 12:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Trance or Daze? 12:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qanun 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 03:18, September 18 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) (me, the one filing the request)
Zandweb (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

WP:RFC link
WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated edit

Destruction of integrity of an existing article (Qanun), and the splitting up into two separate articles (Kanun (Instrument) being the original article)

Short synopsis of problem: To begin with, there was a single article on this instrument, the qanun, at Qanun. User Zandweb recently started adding an ethnocentric infobox ({{iranian musical instruments}} to this article, which I reverted several times, since it incorrectly labeled the instrument as being solely and primarily an Iranian (Persian) instrument, which it is not; it is shared among several cultures. I tried several times to engage this user in dialog, posting on the article's discussion page and urging them to do so as well, but they never once responded (to date, they haven't responded, except to post something in Farsi, I think, on my discussion page, which I don't understand as I don't speak that language).

This escalated, and they ended up moving the existing page to Kanun (Instrument) (this is more or less the original article, together with its discussion page), and changing Qanun to the now Persian version of this instrument. This is all so wrong, and needs to be fixed.

Without going into an exhaustive discussion: the qanun/kanun belongs to Persia and Turkey (and Armenia as well). It is essentially the same instrument with slightly different names. Zandweb has, in my view, hijacked the article and tried to "claim" it as a solely Persian instrument. (I pointed out to them that it would have been just as wrong to put a Turkish template on the page as the Iranian one.) For comparison, refer to the article on the cymbalum, which is an instrument that is also shared by several cultures, with different names and slightly different forms, but basically the same instrument. It's the same here: this should all be in a single article which covers the cultural variations of the instrument. At cymbalum, all the variants—cimbalom, tsambal, hammered dulcimer, etc.—manage to cohabit the article peacefully.

I would like the original article restored, and the other junk floating around (some created, I must admit, when I unsuccessfully tried to restore the original article) deleted.

I would also invite Zandweb to contribute to the restored page, and to add material specific to the Persian form of the instrument there.

Thank you for your consideration. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.
- ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs)

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation between GoldDragon and CJCurrie regarding the page Howard Moscoe 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 12:32, September 24 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

GoldDragon (talk · contribs)
CJCurrie (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Howard_Moscoe

Issues to be mediated edit

I stumbled upon this mess while browsing Wikipedia and it's in dire need of attention. For the past several MONTHS (yes, that's months, this dates back to at least June) GoldDragon and CJCurrie have been involved in what seems to be nonstop bickering over this one single article. The back-and-forthing and reversions that are taking place are making the article a mess and, it really looks like it's preventing any real work from taking place on the article itself. These two need some serious guidance- guidance from a mediator- on getting this worked out.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 17:33, September 24 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Ccson (talk · contribs)
NinjaNubian (talk · contribs) aka *Mykungfu (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

Is the Cornell University Library article regarding Alpha Phi Alpha a valid reference when it states The Sphinx Magazine, published in 1914, is the second oldest continuously published black journal in the United States. The oldest one is the NAACP’s Crisis Magazine, which was started by W.E.B. Du Bois, a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.?
Is the term "Pioneer" a correct term to replace the word vanguard from the statement source PBS, when referring to members of Alpha Phi Alpha and their role in the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)?
Is it acceptable to list 7 names from the article in the introduction section of the article, or should only 3 be mentioned?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Is the Crisis a black magazine is the issue b/c the NAACP isn't a black organization, but rather a multi-racial organization. It was founded for the advancement of colored people (blacks, native americans, asians, hispanics, and jews). Thus this would make the Crisis was created by the NAACP a multi racial magazine.
should "pionner" be used or played a key role in that "What is wrong with "played a key role" Pioneers and vanguard are quite misleading. the Niagra movement (which was heavily assisted with whites) and the NAACP (which was heavily founded with the help of whites) were role players but not central like the father of the civil rights movement vernon johns. Vernon Johns is the father of the american civil rights movement, startig it in the 1920's. it ended in 63. thus alpha phi alpha weren't pioneers, but played key roles." also since the civil right key members involved many members of various NPHC groups including Alpha Kappa Alpha (rose parks), Kappa Alpha Psi, and Omega psi Phi.
Should the pledging section be expanded to pledging and hazing in that hazing is mentioned in the article's beginning
should "swiftly" be used or later on in terms of fraternity expanision?
should the paper bag test be expanded upon?
should there be a section on internal racism and colorism?
should members who are honorary be noted that they are honorary?
should ape be used as a symbol of the fraternity being that it isn't listed on the national website as a symbol? in the same way that dog isn't used for omega psi phi as a symbol on it's page on wikipedia?
should prototype be used in describing alpha's relation to other black greeks? it doesn't utilize a NPOV and there is no proof behind it.
should this sentence be removed "Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. Sigma was founded as an organization for professionals and college graduates and not as an organization of black college students." Misnomer is more of an attack and "http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/" the official home page lists it as fraternity.
should vaugn lowery be incldued in the member section being that he is the most famous young alpha phi alpha member to date. vaugn lowery
Is Alpha Phi Alpha the first inter collegiate black fraternity? When there is factual evidence that Alpha Kappa Nu was founded before them at a college? [4] [5] [6]
Should the 99th alpha phi alpha convention video be included on external links? [7]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree Ccson 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
agree to amended and additional issues listed. Mykungfu 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: One of the parties has been blocked indefinitely.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 03:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of Westboro Baptist Church

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 22:18, October 12 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Gnrlotto talk contributions
132.241.246.111 talk contributions

See:132.241.246.111 talk: [8] and contributions:[9]Note: IP Address 132.241.246.111, besides being a Chico State IP address, and therefore not limited to only one computer, has been tagged as being at least the possible sockpuppet of two different accounts (Grazon and IP Address 63.198.18.163)--please see their user page [10] for more information.

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Not possible. User only goes by IP address (132.241.246.111), therefore no "permanent" way to communicate.

Issues to be mediated edit

132.241.246.111 feels that any description of what King did (in the Coretta Scott King article) as a civil rights forerunner is unnecessary as well as believes the word "enlighten" (v. give intellectual insight to, instruct) is a POV word. User can not provide reason why after being requested, but has called such information "high handed horse shit," as can be seen on their 19:59, 9 October 2006 edit to the page.
132.241.246.111 apparently feels that referencing the information present (in the Sweden article) as well as providing pictures of the people mentioned in it are unnecessary. User will not provide reason why.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

132.241.246.111 feels a basic description (in the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert article) of what Phelps's bible quotes were, as well as his comments about America are unnecessary. User will not provide reason why.
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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.Gnrlotto 22:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: 132.241.246.111 would need an account for formal mediation to proceed. Continued, civil discussion on the talk page would be beneficial at this point.

For the Mediation Committee,

—Guan aco 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 18:47, July 28 2006 (UTC)
Deadline: 18:47, July 6 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Andrew_c (talk · contribs)
Codex_Sinaiticus (talk · contribs)
Centrx (talk · contribs)
Ryulong (talk · contribs)
Panarjedde (talk · contribs) (currently blocked: if not unblocked for this mediation, FosterMe (talk · contribs) will stand for him)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Third opinion

Issues to be mediated edit

This is an issue about the interpretation of the Manual of Style about the use of AD/CE next to years. One party interprets the MoS in the sense that AD/CE should be used only when in intervals (i.e. 1 BC-AD 1), never otherwise; Others interpret MoS in the sense that an editor should be allowed to put AD/CE every time he/she feels it makes the text more clear, even in articles completely dealing with AD/CE years/decades/centuries.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

None

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FosterMe (talk • contribs)
Refuse. The dispute is three days old; no RfC has yet been listed for it, which is the standard route for policy- and guideline-related matters; this is not any sort of heated content dispute; one of the parties is indefinitely banned for edit warring and evasion with sockpuppets and cannot participate, and the user who initiated the request who is supposed to "stand for" him is likely a sockpuppet of that banned user. —Centrx?talk • 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The user who filed this RfC registered today, July 28, around 2pm Eastern Daylight Time. If anything, he is a sockpuppet of the user who cannot be here due to indefinite blocks on his account, as well as range blocks on his IP. Ryulóng 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 19:49, September 26 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

MariusM (talk · contribs)
William Mauco (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

discussion in the article talk page [11]

Issues to be mediated edit

Issue 1: Should be mentioned in the article the sentence: "As stated in an OSCE-report, ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova"?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.--MariusM 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goin' Band from Raiderland 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 12:46, October 1 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Goin' Band from Raiderland

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

User talk:**********

Issues to be mediated edit

If a fact is uncited, can it be marked as such even though a citation at the end of the article may contain parts of said fact?
Is a website promoting a group an appropriate place to verify fact about the group?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. ********** 12:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: Parties have not agreed to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 15:52, October 4 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

M (talk · contribs)
Ron Marshall (talk · contribs)

Note: This list is most incomplete. See the straw poll at Talk:Cold_fusion#Survey, user:M is only one of nine editors, including me, who hold the opinion, labelled "other party" here. --Pjacobi 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved edit

Cold Fusion

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

WP:RFC link

Issues to be mediated edit

One party believes the article should have a neutal point of view by providing the point of view of both the skeptics and the experimenters. The other party believes only the point of view of skeptics should be represented.

One party believes the experimental evidence and corresponding arguments for both sides should be represented. The other party does not want a detailed discussion of experimental evidence.

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.--Ron Marshall 15:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.–M^T 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: A party does not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]