Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/16

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation‎ | Rejected
Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages


Urartu 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: 17:19, December 13 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit


Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Issue 1 - Part of the "Urartu" entry dealing with "Ethnic Composition".


Additional issues to be mediated edit

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

  1. Agree.dacy69
  2. Agree.nareklm
  3. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

  • Reject: Parties did not agree to medaite within the seven day window.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sanchez

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: 23:20, December 19 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether "All information sourced by legitimate media should be presented" on an arrest for sexual assault that was never prosecuted.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • If this is not fit for mediation, when where should this issue be taken?

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.
  1. Agree. Bobak 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree Hector M Lopez 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree JWright0 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree Linc Park 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree SSeas

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject Parties fail to agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 14:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


September 11, 2001 attacks

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: 16:01, December 26 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • An external timeline of 911 events from a website called Cooperative Research is unsuitable for inclusion in the 911 Attacks article because it is a link to a donation appeal [5], uses a conspiratorial editing tone, and has verifiability problems with its claimed sources. An informal straw poll supported this resolution 11-3.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Compromise: Rather than use the Cooperative Research link, an external timeline from CNN has been proposed, instead. [6]

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.
  1. Agree. --StuffOfInterest 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. --NuclearZer0 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. --Abe Froman 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree. Tom Harrison Talk 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Disagree.--MONGO 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Disagree. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. ––Slipgrid 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Disagree --Mmx1 17:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Disagree --rogerd 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree. --Peter Grey 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree. SalvNaut 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. Ronabop 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Rejected. Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Evolution

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: 22:06, December 27 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

Censoring of discussing by Admins. We're not even talking about changing the article! Admins are actually censoring the discussion because it presents factual evidence they don't agree with.

Further, how can the Admins/Mods that are censoring the discusssion actually be allowed to veto the arbitration? It's like telling the criminal he can toss out his own case, if he wants.

Of course these "Mods" are going to disagree with Arbitration, because it only serves their purpose. How is that fair? They get to delete discussion, and then avoid any repercussions because they dont' want any? It's not logical at all.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Abuse of Power NPOV in the Evolution Article Biting Newcomers

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.
  1. Agree. Ymous 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.
  3. Disagree. Titanium Dragon 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. '"Disagree'". GetAgrippa 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Disagree.--Filll 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DisagreeOrangeMarlin 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Disagree Candy 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Blue Lion (talk · contribs) vs. Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs)

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.

Statement by user:The Blue Lion edit

My user account was blocked by a user that suspoect me of being someone else. I tried unblock and the request was ignored. The user, Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) suspects me of being EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) because I used images found on his webpage to improve the Voltron page. Both users Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) and EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) have a long history of fighting and edit warring and I had no idea that using images from Eddie's site would lead to being blocked myself. Although evading a block might be forbidden. I felt it was necessary to voice my opinion against a user I would have had nothing to do with in an attempt to clear my name. I would not have create this account had it not been for the action of the above user. The Blue Lion 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit


Issues to be mediated edit

  • Suspicion that I'm another user (The IP I used a public use computer)


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.
  1. Agree. --User:The Blue Lion
  2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Reject: This is not an issue for mediation. If you feel that you were wronged by another user in terms of blocking, it would probably be best to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard, or perhaps file a request for comment.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

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: 07:02, December 30 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Issue 1 - Mention of the institute being unaccredited.
  • Issue 2 - Inclusion of the opinion of the Chairman of India's University Grants Commission

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Ad hominem attack on one of the sources cited - Rashmi Bansal
  • Continuous whitewashing of the page to remove all criticism of the institute

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.
  1. Agree. Makrandjoshi 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediaition within 7 days.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Overcategorization

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: 21:54, December 29 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

A number of other users are involved in a broader discussion, but it's between us two I think mediation might be most useful, as we are the two mostly butting heads with each others.

Articles involved edit

  • Wikipedia:Overcategorization
    • Some extra discussion Is at BDJ's talk page.
    • While discussion hasn't escalated to WP:CIVIL yet, we have come today to both accusing each others of denying the other's opinion and arguments, so I preferred to ask for Mediation before we actually reach that point.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether WP:OC is fit to be tagged with {{guideline}} and treated as such.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether sufficient consensus was achieved when WP:OC was first tagged as a guideline.
    • Reason that WP:OC's legitimacy is contested

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.
  1. Agree. Circeus 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 29 December 2006 (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-mediators should not edit this section.

  • This does not appear to be a mediation dispute; while we would be happy to help the two of you resolve any disputes you might have, we really can't be involved in "deciding" an issue like the policy status of the pages. This is one of those rare cases where I'm going to have to ask for a bit more detail on the proposed scope of medaition. (On the talk page, please.) Essjay (Talk) 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject: This dispute isn't right for mediation; it should be raised in a forum like ANI or RFC where the broader community can participate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paytakaran

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: 20:10, January 2 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

  • My attempt to solve the issue. Khoikhoi 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Dispute as to whether or not Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania

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.
  1. Agree. Grandmaster 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Nareklm 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Parishan 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. Dacy69 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Rejected. Parties do not agree to mediation.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Military of Myanmar

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: 01:54, January 6 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Non military related facts
  • NPOV and out of scope from WikiProjects Military History
  • Using Wikipedia to settle political scores and as propaganda playground

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.
  1. Agree. Okkar 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hollywood North

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: 01:39, January 15 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • US Reaction Section
  • NPOV Issues
  • Improper citations failing to support statements
  • Reverting to grammatically incorrect versions
  • Staying with in the scope of the article

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Re-surfacing issues that had been solved
  • Ensuring factual accuracy is maintained

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.
  1. Agree - Langara College 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree - Duhon 08:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Disgree - (see talk page) - Mkdwtalk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree - (see talk page) - Ckatzchatspy 05:50, 17 January 2007 (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-mediators should not edit this section.

  • Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 10:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/16&oldid=1144849829"