Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/26

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

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages


Korean War 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: 14:17, June 26 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1: [1]
  • Example link 2: [2]

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Issue 1: How to stop the edit/revert war on casualty figures without pushing any particular POV
  • Issue 2

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. wbfergus 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Parsecboy 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Kfc1864 07:34, 27 June 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, for now. There has been an article RfC opened about this article since this RfM was created, and I am reluctant to let an RfM run parallel to it. The comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Korean War were well-founded to trying to resolve this dispute, in my opinion.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exetel 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: 15:54, June 29 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Long discussion on talk page.

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Whether a particular, but contentious ISP policy should have a section on the ISPs Wikipedia article.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. Scott5834 15:54, 29 June 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. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the substantial 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 articles, and I believe that the two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

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: 23:05, July 2 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Repeat2341#Spam

  • Example link 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veganism#Feedlot_Radio

  • Link 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_rights#Unbalanced

Update: The Mediation committee rejected my request at this time, because I have not yet exhausted all the other avenues of mediation. I am attempting to open various other avenues of discussion:

Village Pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29#Veganism

Third Opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Veganism

Wikiquette: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Veganism

Request for Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy


Mediation Cabal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-03_WikiProject_Animal_rights

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Issue 1

I am attempting to add either a link to, or directly add content regarding, the significant counterarguments to this point of view. The editors keep blocking my attempts, saying that I am just adding my opinions or attempting to promote my site.

I'll be honest - the POV expressed on your veganism page is "stock", the same stock I received ten years ago, the same stock that has permanently damaged my physical, mental and emotional health, reputation, and relationship to my family. I wish very strongly that I had had access to any form of reasonable counterargument at that time; my life is a recovery process from the mistakes I made due to being misinformed about veganism.

I understand that this philosophical content doesn't have references, but it is a logical point of view, and it should be present in this and related articles. The editors' actions are normal, but misguided. If I were young now, and interested in this subject, I would surely access it on wikipedia. Having no opposing points of view in these articles, and denying mine because they aren't academically referenced (they can't be! There is no academic reference to make; I had to figure all this out on my own, to my tremendous misfortune.), makes this article a useless reference, even a damaging one.

I am hoping a more objective and empowered party higher in the administrative hierarchy will hear my case and give me some option for improving the balance of these pages. Thanks!

The content I wanted to add: If you are considering vegetarianism, you should also be aware that vegan groups will not provide you with the notion that animals in feedlots do nothing except eat, are protected from the elements, and are killed as swiftly and humanely as the needs of the average working family (emotional, mental and physical) will allow. Many people feel that farm animals lives are among the easiest on the planet, might be preferred to life in the wild, and that vegetarianism as it is presented does not stand up in a larger intellectual context. Many vegans live socially and physically sheltered lives, and this is considered to be important to the overall evaluation of this concept.


The link I wanted to add: http://www.feedlotradio.org

  • Issue 2

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree.

Repeat2341 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Disagree

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. 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond, California

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: 05:41, June 29 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Discussion on the Richmond talk page here (see I-80 Image, Request for Comment/I-80 Image, Content removal, and 28 I-80 congestion wording)
  • Discussion on ILikeToBeAnonymous' talk page (see vandalism, Your edits to Richmond, California, which facts am i twisting?, Uncivility, 3RR)
  • Third opinion from User:Chrishomingtang and User:Dreaded Walrus

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Article wording

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 05:41, June 29, 2007 (UTC).
  2. Agree. Chris! my talk 19:22, 29 June 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.

Mediation by the Mediation Committee focuses solely on content of articles, and will not diverge into conduct issues. As such, I have removed the Uncivility and harrassment issue from the list. If the parties who have, to date, voted to agree to mediation wish to reconsider given this exclusion, they are more than welcome to (as mediation is entirely voluntary).
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 05:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hyneman

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: 06:56, July 8 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

none

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Is it reasonable to report Jamie Hyneman as an atheist or is it mere speculation?
  • If it is in fact, mere speculation, then is the question of his purported atheism held to a higher standard than his purported skepticism or any other piece of information?

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree Martin-C 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree. I think this is a premature step. The disagreement has not gone on for long at all. As Martin-C had to acknowledge higher up on this page, no other steps have been taken to resolve the dispute. I think we need to let other editors weigh in on the issue. Wryspy 17:00, 8 July 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, all parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

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: 16:39, July 1 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Waiting for over 6 months in the hope that time would heal
  • The two MFD cited above, the first of which was closed without prejudice as improperly presented after I foolishly allowed my presentation to be sidetracked and derailed, the second of which is ongoing.

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Psychonaut Has kept entries on User:ABenis and User:Zeraeph on User:Psychonaut/User watchlist which he describes as "Monitoring vandals and other problematic editors" in the link from User:Psychonaut (see:[3]). I am not happy with this on a personal level or in terms of WP:AGF
  • In [4] Psychonaut states that: "Anyone who I happen to encounter who turns out to be persistent or far-reaching in their policy violations, and who does not seem to be actively monitored by other editors." even though all User:ABenis has ever done is make about 100 good faith edits to a handful of articles (See:Special:Contributions/ABenis) and has not edited anything at all since November 2 2006, and all his, self stated, vigilance concerning User:Zeraeph has yielded since November 2nd 2006 is[5] a single violation that is dependent on bending the 3RR almost to breaking point, [6] (the fourth edit being a different, minor edit removing of a link to convicted fraudulant historian David Irving.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. --Zeraeph 16:39, 1 July 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 did not note their agreement to mediation within seven days.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary International 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: 16:59, July 8 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  • Bombastus
  • PierreLarcin

Articles involved edit

  • Rotary international

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Discussion in Talk Page
  • Discussion in wiki French

Issues to be mediated edit

  • List of famous lecturers allowed to give speeches in different Rotary Clubs

Additional issues to be mediated edit

  • Activity on Rotary wiki done by Rotarians
  • Insults of "well PierreLarcin says there is a Rotarian plot"

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. Pierre 16:59, 8 July 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. 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filibuster Cartoons

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: 18:16, July 9 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Filibuster_Cartoons

Issues to be mediated edit

Whether or not it is appropriate and/or relevant to mention a website's factual errors/biases in an article about said website.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree. W00p
  2. Agree. --G2bambino 18:37, 9 July 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. Insufficient discussion (talk page history) 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passive smoking

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: 22:29, July 11 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mickeyklein

The talk page indicates an intractable situation, it is not a matter of bad faith but genuine disagreement. I do not believe that I can change his mind to allow my edits in.

Issues to be mediated edit

  • NPOV - The page holds that the point of view of the scientific community is invariably that the hypothesis that passive smoke causes cancer is correct. This excludes legitimate scientific POV that the hypothesis is false. Studies, including a massive clinical trial conducted by the World Health Organization have shown that it is possible that the hypothesis is not sound.

For the page to have a NPOV it must include findings from scientists that have a different POV, including the written account of the scientists who conducted the WHO study, who provide a different POV from the dominant one on the page.

  • The Inclusion of Primary Sources: MastCell has berated me for attempting to include the WHO study while at the same time he has no objections to the uncountable studies mentioned in the page that support his own POV. In essence, he is telling me that only primary sources that support the

anti passive smoking POV can be included, and those scientific findings that have a different POV are excluded simply because they are direct scientific findings.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

"Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.[1][2][3][4]"

This is a factually misleading statement. There exists scientific evidence that exposure to passive smoke does not cause these things. It is unobjectionable to include "the vaste majority" or "most" but this introduction is an absolutist statement from a particular POV.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. Agree.
  2. Disagree. This is a premature step from an editor who has just arrived at an article on a controversial topic, wanting to advance a minority POV, has made a number of major edits without discussion or paying any attention to the history and had them reverted, and now wants to escalate.JQ 00:18, 12 July 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 mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

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: 00:04, July 12 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • This is a very contentious issue. I am willing to informally mediate or have someone else do it (this request). I think it does not need the Mediation Cabel. VK35 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
  1. 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. There is sufficient resistance towards any mediation, whether informal, by the MedCab, or by us here at the MedCom, should take place. Further, the filer of this request says that he/she'll mediate it. Hence, why was this RfM filed? You file an RfM to have the Mediation Committee consider whether we, as a group of experienced mediators, can help you. No issues listed, resistance towards mediation, and the fact that the person applying for the RfM wants to mediate, means filing this case is pointless.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/26&oldid=981368705"