Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/46

Rejected request for mediation concerning Turpan

Turpan Request for formal mediation Article Turpan (talk)  Submitted 29 Sep 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Rjanag (talk · contribs), filing party Pmanderson (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Turpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted RfC and 3O: Talk:Turpan#Naming. Multiple editors commented, but no neutral editor took the initiative to actually evaluate the RfC, so neither one of us can yet claim that the RfC resulted in any "consensus". Hoping that this RM will bring the issue to the attention of someone uninvolved to can recommend further action. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Whether the article should be located at "Turpan" or "Turfan" Admin misconduct: whether it was proper for Rjanag to decide the issue after being the chief advocate on the side he decided for; whether he should have reverted on this page; whether he should continue moving the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Fine, for now. But if Rjanag continues his misconduct, other fora will be better suited to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject as Pmanderson has been blocked for 1 month for "personal attacks/harassment". If both parties wish to proceed with mediation of this content dispute at the expiration of that block, please file a new request. For the Committee, AGK 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Survivor registry

Survivor registry Request for formal mediation Article Survivor registry (talk)  Submitted 09 Nov 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Editforaccuracy (talk · contribs), filing party ArthurRubin (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute {{all articles involving the al Quaeda terrorist attacks in the northeast United States on September 11, 2001}} Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated Primary issues The other user Arthur Rubin refuses to allow more specific information to be included in the articles concerned in this dispute. He is blocking - use of the full date of the terrorist attack even in situations when the date is not being quoted or part of a proper name. - description of the perpetrator of the attack - location of the attack Issue 2 He has sent me letters saying that my insertion of these facts in articles on this topic are inappropriate even though some of them (the full date and perpetrator) are mentioned in the main article on the topic: "The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001." I cannot reason with a person who edits out facts written with proper grammar from a supposed encyclopedia article because of that person's opinions on style or other opinions. 9/11 is shorthand. It is not the proper name for that date in time nor is it a proper name for the terrorist attack in question. The thousands of other terrorist attacks that have occurred do not go by "month/date" only on Wikipedia articles unless they are dates used in spoken or written quotes. This terrorist attack happened 9 years ago in one part of the world. It is not known as "9/11" to millions of English-speaking people around the world any more than "4/19" is known as the date in of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Editforaccuracy Note from User:Golbez I've indef blocked this user; he's been edit warring all day solely to add who committed 9/11 and where in the country it happened to multiple articles, then when he hit 3RR with his IP he made an account. First of all, someone making an account named "Editforaccuracy" rarely is. (Our User:Neutrality is the only user who can get away with such a name :P) Second of all, he came to RFM without even attempting to engage Arthur Rubin - whose reverts were valid - in conversation. This person clearly has no interest in actually improving the pedia. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject per Golbez's note. For the Committee, AGK 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Xavier College

Xavier College Request for formal mediation Article Xavier College (talk)  Submitted 05 Oct 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Example (talk · contribs) Example2 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Xavier College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Details get filled here. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Issues were here. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agreements go here. Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. As this is a relatively simple and new dispute, please pursue earlier stages in the content dispute resolution process—such as third opinions, requests for comment, or informal mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 12:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Creampie (sexual act)

Creampie (sexual act) Request for formal mediation Article Creampie (sexual act) (talk)  Submitted 06 Nov 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Herostratus (talk · contribs), filing party RaseaC (talk · contribs) Cyclopia (talk · contribs) Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) Nandesuka (talk · contribs) The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) Torchiest (talk · contribs) Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) Seedfeeder (talk · contribs) Cptnono (talk · contribs) Thirteen squared (talk · contribs) Anchoress (talk · contribs) Macwhiz (talk · contribs) Enric Naval (talk · contribs) Smartse (talk · contribs) Tijfo098 (talk · contribs) Mike Cline (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Creampie (sexual act) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Discussion: Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image Request for Comment: Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Request for Comment Issues to be mediated Primary issues Should the image File:Creampie drawing 1.svg be included in the article, or not? Additional issues (added by other parties) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. Cyclopiatalk 16:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. —Torchiest talk/edits 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Nandesuka (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. --SeedFeeder (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. --132 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Disagree. --SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee Rejected - not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute

Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute Request for formal mediation Article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute (talk)  Submitted 29 Oct 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users BS24 (talk · contribs), filing party Binksternet (talk · contribs) Cloonmore (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#Editing Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#120 texts in The Revolution Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#Anonymous Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#1989 Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#Neutrality tag Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#FFL founding year Issues to be mediated Primary issues This is a long running dispute that began in July 2010 with this edit on the Susan B. Anthony List page. The dispute is over the dispute over Susan B. Anthony's views on abortion. After the debate had sprawled over from the SBA List page to the Susan B. Anthony page, at the recommendation of other editors I created a new article for the abortion dispute on 13 October 2010. This hasn't resolved much of anything, and the fighting continues. Essentially, User:Binksternet has reverted most, if not all, edits made by myself and User:Cloonmore (examples 1 2 3 4. Binksternet has stated repeatedly (1) 2) that Wikipedia should decide that one side is correct and that the article should serve as a "rebuttal" to people who say she was pro-life. Both myself and Binksternet are guilty of incivility, as this is a rather heated dispute. I hope this mediation will put that aside so we can work to a fair compromise. Note that other editors have been involved in passing on the SBA and SBA List articles, but rather than search for everyone who has been involved I just included the editors who are in the dispute for this article. If any editor who was involved in the other articles wishes to be added, please post a message on my talk page. BS24 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. BS24 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee Reject - not all parties have agreed in the one-week period allotted to them. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Dadivank Monastery

Dadivank Monastery Request for formal mediation Article Dadivank Monastery (talk)  Submitted 22 Oct 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Quantum666 (talk · contribs), filing party Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Dadivank Monastery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted [1]. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Choosing foreign names for the objects located on the disputed territory (Karabakh) Choosing which administrative division should be mentioned for the disputed territory. (Disputed edit [2]) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Quantum666 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee Rejected - one party blocked for a year. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Andre Geim

Andre Geim Request for formal mediation Article Andre Geim (talk)  Submitted 24 Oct 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Therexbanner (talk · contribs), filing party Narking (talk · contribs), Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), Gladsmile (talk · contribs), Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Epeefleche (talk · contribs), DrWhoever (talk · contribs), Aviados (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), Mbz1 (talk · contribs), Andrensath (talk · contribs), Articles concerned in this dispute Andre Geim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Very extensive talk page discussion. Asked for 3rd party opinion on BLP noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Issues to be mediated Primary issues Policy question: Which contradicting sources take precedence- an article subject's own statements (sourced interview), or sources written by someone else? Policy question: If the interview takes precedence, do ambiguous ethnic/religious laws (halactic laws in this case) apply to Wikipedia? Actual primary issues Policy question: Who gets to decide who is or is not "Jewish"; reliable sources, or Wikipedia editors, based on their own criteria? Policy question: If reliable sources state someone is "Jewish", and no reliable sources state that person is not Jewish, can Wikipedia editors decide sources nevertheless disagree, based on statements about that person's grandmother? Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, I don't feel that I am a party in this. I have no opinion either way, though I think that the others here should go through mediation. I have, and I am still, only protecting the article against POV pushers, sockpuppets, and edit warring (note, before Russian.science, I warned one of the other parties for similar). For all that can be said, Russian.science might be completely right in what he wants to include, but the way editing on the article was going is not the way forward, get consensus first, and half of the editors will have to live with the fact that the article will be in the wrong version until consensus is reached (and Russian.science has gone to far in that; I will apply WP:RBI also here if he is to create another sockpuppet here - proper unblock requests on his main account will be considered). I will remove myself as a 'party' to this mediation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee Rejected - not all parties have accepted in the time allotted to them. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning White Argentine

White Argentine Request for formal mediation Article White Argentine (talk)  Submitted 09 Nov 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Pablozeta (talk · contribs) filing party IANVS (talk · contribs) Rusoargentino (talk · contribs) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) Off2riorob (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute White Argentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted There is a long argument on the talk page: Talk:White Argentine. Issues to be mediated Primary issues The article is accused of being Original Research, but all statements are well referenced. There was a dispute about the term White Argentine, so it was clarified in the section Usage of the term. The article is mainly about the White people born and residing in Argentina, and their influence in Argentine culture. The concept of White Argentine includes all the European/Caucasus/Mddle Eastern ethnic groups and their descendants, who intermingled among them in Argentina.; it also includes all Argentinians who may have a little Amerindian/Black African admixture, but whose phenotype is evidently Caucasian. It does not include Mestizo people. This grouping of ethnic groups that is criticized is the same applied in similar articles: White American, White Canadian, White Mexican, White Latin American, etc. All this was explained in the talk page. Then detractors began to accuse the article of violating BLP policy, so we (the filing party) are trying to collect sources to amend this, but the detractors go further and further erasing photographs and sections at will. As it is explained in the talk page, and in the usage of the term section, if the term is not used in Argentina, how White Argentines will identify themselves with a term they barely use? Most White Argentines will answer: Argentine of European/Middle Eastern descent. Additional issues (added by other parties) People, some of them living are being identified through a colour without reliable citations. As in Johnny is a white Argentinian Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Comment: Although I admit there's much work to be done regarding the BLP for this article, the criteria is to identify people by (sourced) descent, in the case their ethnicity can be considered illustrative of the umbrella ethnic term "White Argentine". It may be because the person is representative of an ethnic group included under the umbrella term, or because it may be representative of the admixture of the pertaining ethnic groups. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The supposed ethnicity 'White Argentine' is not itself properly sourced in the article, and instead appears to be based on an 'ethnic category' applied by outsiders: its application to living individuals appears to be directly contrary to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, on several grounds beyond issues of sourcing. Comment: White Argentine is an umbrella categorization mostly used by foreigners (although there are local examples as well), as there is not an equivalent legal/official term in Argentina. All of this is expressed and explained in the article subsection "Usage of the term". Anyway, the term is coincident with like categorizations around the world by international (referenced) sources, and it is intended towards the better understandment of the Argentine ethnic panorama for non-specialized readers. As explained before, individuals are identified by its descent, as long as their ethnicity is undoubtely included below the umbrella definition. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The sections on culture give no valid grounds for their discussion of such culture as specifically 'white'. (They are also ridiculously long IMO, but that is another issue). Comment: The culture sections do not pretend to adscribe cultural expressions to a single ethnia. They just underline the relevant contributions to them made by Argentines identified as White, in the same way other articles underlines, for exapmle, the Yoruba influence and contribution to Tango music. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The article fails to consistently distinguish between ethnicity (a self-attributed sociocultural construct), and descent. Instead it switches between the two concepts as and when it suits the purpose of the article. Comment: It is needed to discern both concepts in this article (but not only in this article, BTW). Anyway, there are plenty of sources that identifdy a distinct Argentine ethnicity conformed by XIX-XX century European, Middle Eastern and Caucasian immigrants (combined with the previous Criollo culture), as distinct from the Argentine-Amerindian ethnicities, the Afro-Argentine ethnicity and the (more recent) East Asian Argentine ethnicity. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I feel that labelling participants 'detractors' is unhelpful, and possibly indicative of an article ownership problem. There is further evidence of this on the talk page. I accept that this is in part due to language difficulties, but it needs to be understood by all contributors that nobody is excluded from editing an article on any grounds other than non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. Comment: This is clear, as long as the editions are not disruptive and abusive (i.e. while they are not properly discussed at talk page, as has been the case plenty of times). --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Though again language difficulties may be a factor, the 'edit-warring' that has occurred over templates (see the article history) seems further evidence that some contributors are more concerned with retaining 'their version' than with adopting a more neutral stance towards content. Given the existence of many other articles relating to demographics, ethnicity, and migration in the Argentinian context, I can see little reason for this article's existence other than as a WP:POVFORK. Though mediation may resolve this matter, I personally believe that any real solution would require a fundamental rewrite, if indeed WP:RS could be found to justify an article as presently named. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Comment: Demographics, ethnicity and immigration to Argentina articles are referrred to ALL argentines, including East Asian migration, Amerindian demographics and Afro ethnicity in Argentina. This article treat about a more definite subject, so it would be wrong to limit its scope to any of those. BTW, most other medium-size/large caountries have specific articles in WP regarding each of these subjects. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ab initio - is categorization-by-race a proper type of categorization, or is it, as applied to BLPs, something which requires specific individual strong reliable sources? Collect (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Comment: There's no categorization by race in the article, nor you will find a single racial definition in it. "White" is an umbrella ethnic denomination. --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) A comment on the revised 'Primary issues' statement "....it also includes all Argentinians who may have a little Amerindian/Black African admixture, but whose phenotype is evidently Caucasian". 'Phenotype' is a term from genetics. If the article is about an 'ethnicity', as it purports to be, such issues are at best irrelevant, or at worst an attempt to sneak a 'racial' categorisation in by the back door. Categorisation of individuals by 'race' is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia rules: Race Note: The wording of this section is currently under dispute and should be treated with caution until clarified. Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic. While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People. From Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Off-topic here, but can anyone tell me how long we have to wait for 'mediation' before it becomes apparent that it isn't going to happen? (Feel free to delete this if I'm out of line asking). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Be patient. Mediation can take several months or more. This is far from unusual - you might, if you wish, prod the missing person on their UT page. Collect (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Pablozeta (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree Collect (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Rusoargentino (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. --IANVS (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in 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; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Fractional-reserve banking

Fractional-reserve banking Request for formal mediation Article Fractional-reserve banking (talk)  Submitted 01 Dec 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Reissgo (talk · contribs), filing party BigK HeX (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Fractional-reserve banking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#This_article_indicates_that_much_of_the_FRB_article_is_wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Money_multiplier Issues to be mediated Primary issues Weather to allow a comment in the main article stating that it is disputed that the money multiplier puts a cap on money creation. If issue one is allowed, then what reference should/could be used. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Reissgo (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning The Man Who Would Be Queen

The Man Who Would Be Queen Request for formal mediation Article The Man Who Would Be Queen (talk)  Submitted 01 Dec 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Tijfo098 (talk · contribs), filing party WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) 98.149.114.34 (talk · contribs) presumed to be (vanished) User:DarlieB Possibly less involved users but who commented on the talk page recently: Jokestress (talk · contribs) DGG (talk · contribs) Dicklyon (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute The Man Who Would Be Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Circular discussions going on the article's talk for at least two years now. There has been a slow revert war on the primary issues below for at least two months. The relative complexity of the issues prevents simple RfC-type questions, and some of the long-term contributors to this article seem to ignore what others suggest anyway, so I think they should be engaged rather than overruled. However, it seems necessary that we try a more structured form of dialogue than what has been practiced on the article's talk page (in parallel with the reverts). Issues to be mediated Primary issues The Moser citation issue: What can we infer from doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9331-3 The pictures issue: How much text and context is needed for relating the incident involving James' website. Debated for at least two years [3] Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband Request for formal mediation Article Ed Miliband (talk)  Submitted 09 Nov 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Topperfalkon (talk · contribs), filing party Jayen466 (talk · contribs) Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) Bus stop (talk · contribs) Jayjg (talk · contribs) Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) Off2riorob (talk · contribs) John (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Category:British Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Ed Miliband/Archive 1#RFC BLP Minor Admin intervention Talk:Ed Miliband#Planned WP:BOLD edit - attempt to find middle ground Issues to be mediated Primary issues Clarity of linked categories in regards to subject's religious background Clarification on usage of 'Religion=' entry of infobox, specifically pertaining to this particular instance Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Comment (Not sure where to put this, sorry). There is nothing to mediate here. This is a BLP matter. A subject has declared himself to be either agnostic or atheist (ymmv) - certainly he's explicitly denied being Jewish "in the religious sense". It would therefore clearly be inappropriate to have a prominent infobox suggest that he was "religiously" Jewish. Some/one editor(s) are making spurious claims to the contrary, which have no support in common sense, policy or consensus. This has been explained countless times, but there's a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and flogging dead horses. Uninvolved people have joined the debate and explained the same thing, no joy. Now a mediation request. Mediation can't solve this, the editor(s) concerned simply have to drop it - or uninvolved admins will have to assess whether we are at the point to tendentious and disruptive editing.--Scott Mac 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Scott Mac—you say, "It would therefore clearly be inappropriate to have a prominent infobox suggest that he was 'religiously' Jewish." But of course the Infobox would not be saying that he was "religiously" Jewish. The Infobox would simply read, "Religion: Jewish". Here we see an exact formulation of that field in an Infobox by Notable Names Database. There is nothing "inappropriate" about saying he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Bus stop, by definition 'Religion= Jewish' should imply that someone is religiously Jewish. In the case of Ed Miliband this label would be completely unacceptable, as he has proclaimed that he is not religious. You are making something out of a non-issue. He is not religiously Jewish, so therefore Religion= Jew should not be used. I suggest that this mediation be continued through it's course if you are unable to understand this point that has now been put forward far too many times now for our sanity. We've now reached a new consensus on the talk page to reach a compromise position, but you still continue to debate the point. Please try and see it our way.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Like other editors here, I'm having difficulty understanding what this mediation is about. Topperfalkon proposed a compromise, it was accepted, and there's been nothing on the article's Talk: page about it in over a week now. What else could be gained by a mediation? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Comment To be fair, I did make the request for mediation well before I actually proposed that compromise. It's just taken them a while to inform everyone it seems. Mediation isn't particularly necessary anymore, but it might help those that are still against the compromise to understand why it was reached (and that it was a good compromise, hopefully).--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Topperfalkon—compromise and contradiction are two different ideas. The Infobox at the moment reads "Religion: None". Yet every source asserts unambiguously that Miliband is Jewish. Those sources include Miliband himself who states unequivocally that he is Jewish. The Infobox should be reading "Religion: Jewish", just as this Infobox reads. Unless you have personal expertise that you can bring to bear on this subject, it would seem that the proper operating procedure would be to follow WP:NOR's dictum: In short, stick to the sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Bus stop, you have continually put this view forward, and it has been rejected by a clear consensus. Now, drop it. If you can't then further action will have to be taken against you for disruption. Part of working in a consensus project is to know when you've clearly stated your case and lost the argument.--Scott Mac 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Scott Mac—do you have any sources to support the notion that Miliband has "no religion"? That is what is implied by an Infobox entry of "Religion: None". Miliband's parents were/are both Jewish Holocaust survivors. He has never converted to another religion; he has never disavowed Judaism; he has never even informally adopted any other religion. If you have sources to support that he is not Jewish or that he has "no religion" please present those sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC) You are simply demonstrating my point (quod erat demonstrandum) by repeating the same rejected argument ad infinitum. Various people have already replied at length to tell you why it is based on a false premise, but you are choosing not to listen. I think you are unsuited to this type of project, unless you can modify your approach.--Scott Mac 16:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Scott Mac—You are confusing "refutation" with "disruption." You posted above at 12:55, 25 November 2010. That was a completely gratuitous post—as it does not appear to be, strictly speaking, a part of the Mediation process. It was the initial post in this series of "Comment" posts. Did you expect it to not be refuted? Is there only one side to this dispute—and is it supposed to go unchallenged? Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Sides? There seems to me to be Wikipedia and you. There is nothing much to mediate. There was discussion, there was consensus. You need to get over it.--Scott Mac 00:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC) There are no reliable sources that actually state that Ed Miliband has undergone the rituals typical of being pronounced a follower of Judaism, nor do any reliable sources say (because he has explicitly denied it) following Judaism. How is that difficult to understand?--Topperfalkon (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Scott Mac—unless you have personal expertise in this area I don't think you can be saying what is "inappropriate" for the Infobox for Miliband's religion—as Wiki is not censored and certainly sources support that he is Jewish. I disagree that there is "nothing much to mediate." I find that as far back as October 21 2010 you have argued that my input concerning this matter is tendentious. I am going to ask you to please try to address the material that is widely supported by entirely reliable sources. My argument is that for WP:BLP if for no other concerns you can't put "Religion: None" in the infobox as it is presently formulated. He may be nonobservant Jewish but no source claims that he is not Jewish. It is clearly original research for Wiki to go out on a limb and conclude what no source even remotely implies. Let me ask you a question: Can you show me any source that would support the idea that Miliband "has no religion" or that his religion is "none"? That claim, presently in the Infobox, is ludicrous—it puts the Wiki project in a bad light. And it is a major problem if you take WP:BLP concerns seriously. "Religion: None" should be removed from the Infobox right away. Miliband has certainly never said that he has no religion. At most he has said that he is not observant of Jewish ritual. We are way out of line in constructing an Infobox that makes the illogical and unsupported conclusion that he has no religion, as he has on numerous occasions confirmed and elaborated on the importance of his Jewish identity to who he is as a person. "In spite of his much-trumpeted atheism, Ed's Jewishness is obviously important to him. He seeks neither to hide nor to belittle it. In a conference speech of around 6,000 words, he devoted no less than 300 to a retelling of the story of how his Jewish parents had to flee Nazism, and to the "encouragement and the aspiration to succeed" that he had derived from the obviously caring Jewish home in which he had grown up." "“My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am,” he said. “I visited Israel as I was growing up because my grandmother was living there. I visited for the first time when I was seven, so I was always very aware of my Jewish relatives living in Israel.”" If you can't see the point that I am making then that is additional reason that Mediation is called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I perfectly see the point you are making. It is just that (for reason that have been given countless times) no one accepts it. For most people, the fact that he says he's "Jewish, but not in the religious sense" means that we ought not to put "religion=Jewish" on his article. You think otherwise, and I perfectly respect your perspective. However, no one agrees with you. You've argued your case repeatedly, and still no one agrees with you. Now, you are entitled to carry on thinking you are right, but we work by consensus and consensus is settled against you. The fact you can't accept that is not something anyone else can help you with.--Scott Mac 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) There is no equals sign in the Infobox; it is a colon—the same formulation that this Infobox uses, which happens to say that Ed Miliband's religion is Jewish. When referring to the "Religion" field of the Infobox can we please try to do so accurately? Let us look at the whole paragraph for the quote that you refer to above, from the London Evening Standard: "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. 'Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous.'" The first thing that he says is that he's Jewish. He goes on to say, "…but not in a religious sense." That cannot possibly be interpreted to support the notion presently conveyed in the Infobox that Miliband has no religion, or that his religion is "None". The "…but not in a religious sense" only qualifies the "Obviously I'm Jewish"—it does not negate it. It qualifies it by adding that he is not religious. So what—half the world's Jews are not religious. They are still completely Jewish. David Brooks is not religious, or at least I can find no source indicating that he is religious. His article does not contain an Infobox with a field for "Religion" but it nevertheless says in the body of the article, "Brooks is Jewish." Wouldn't it be absurd if that article said or implied, in an Infobox or in the body of the article, that Brooks had no religion? It would also be a WP:BLP violation. At WP:BLP I find: "We must get the article right." To me that means only conveying what sources convey. Can you please show me the source conveying that Miliband has no religion or that his religion is "None"? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Yup. That's the argument we rejected.--Scott Mac 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Bus stop, the current situation was reached as a compromise. Ed Miliband categorically states, via reliable sources, that he is not religious. However, it is clear that his jewish ethnicity is notable given his position. This put us in a position where people wanted to add him to the Category: British Jews without equal qualification of his non-religiousity. This would have led to some confusion to readers relying on categories. Given that his lack of religion was not explicitly stated in the article (even though the sources supports such a statement) there was a case for the addition of 'Religion= None' to the infobox. There was no editorial consensus for doing that however, but also no editorial consensus for the categories. Having the categories without the qualifier in the infobox is, for me, an untenable situation for the article to be in, hence I proposed the compromise of having both, which has now reached majority consensus. --Topperfalkon (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Topperfalkon (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. --JN466 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC) (Although I note that the dispute has been silent for the past five days, and I thought a compromise had been reached. This mediation thus may not be necessary any more, but I am available if editors feel it is. --JN466 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)) Agree -- but I too wonder how this request arises at this point -- I thought we were done. I will not lose any sleep if the request is rejected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Agree -- this needs wider input. Fresh eyes on the problem may turn up a solution. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Still confused -- it appears that only User:Bus stop disagrees with User:Topperfalkon's compromise, and even then, only a part of it. All other editors reject Bus stop's views on this. The former dispute has been quiet for weeks now. I have no objection to mediation, but what is there to mediate? Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I agree to mediation, though I too am confused about what folks find difficult in understanding or applying Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. --John (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Agree, though per other comments I question the need for this - the issue essentially relates to the opinions of one editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Parties have been notified of this request, so the seven-day timer begins now. AGK 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Reject. Thank you to the other parties for their enlightening comments. It is clear that content mediation, a process suitable only for content disagreements between editors and not for complaints relating to the established facts regarding a BLP subject, would not be helpful here. I am deferring this matter to an administrators' noticeboard, so that an uninvolved administrator can review the situation and take what action might be appropriate. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC) For reference: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ed Miliband (diff). AGK 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning User talk:Kwamikagami

User talk:Kwamikagami Request for formal mediation Pages User talk:Kwamikagami (talk)  Submitted 04 Dec 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Danjel (talk · contribs), filing party Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute User_talk:Kwamikagami#WP:_Edit_War_re:_Roentgenium http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&diff=400450967&oldid=400436988 User_talk:Danjel Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted See above for attempts at talking the issue out on Kwamikagami's talk page; Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#kwamikagami Third party opinions have been sought, these range from "don't rock the boat, just ignore him", to follow through on the dispute resolution process. I've chosen to do the latter. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Kwamikagami, as an admin, shot from the hip to warn me on an issue. When an objection was raised to that warning Kwamikagami responded with personal attacks. I have attempted to resolve the dispute, but Kwamikagami has refused to approach the issue of his personal attacks or his original warning. This is unbecoming for a wikipedia admin. The issue at hand is Kwamikagami's incivility towards me, particularly in his repeated personal attacks on me, most particularly after I objected against him. As an admin, it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of behaviour from Kwamikagami, and Kwamikagami is not living up to this. I have attempted to have the issue resolve the issue with Kwamikagami on his page, this was met with continued personal attacks. Every one of my posts addressed the key issue, that Kwamikagami was shooting from the hip in the first place and that his contributions have been uncivil. I decided to take the issue to Wikiquettes Alerts, because the issue was getting nowhere in one-on-one discussion with Kwamikagami. Advice given there focussed on the original source of the uncalled for warning, being the "edit war" (it was /not/ one), and not on the issue at hand, which was that Kwamikagami's actions and statements were a breach of wikiquette. Kwamikagami responded to my post with another personal attack. My final post on the Kwamikagami's page pointing out that the issue at hand was not the "edit war" (it was /not/ one), but Kwamikagami's incivility was removed by Kwamikagami (as is his right, perhaps because of embarrassment or simply evading the issue), without comment. The conflict needs to be resolved positively. I am not willing to just ignore an encounter with an admin at wikipedia who clearly does not have the temperament to be an admin. Additional issues (added by other parties) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Danjel (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Mediation is for content disputes (disagreements relating to the content of articles). It is not for grievances relating to the conduct of a Wikipedia editor. You should in the first place discuss your concerns with the editor in question, and in the second place take your complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for wider input. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Ratiaria

Ratiaria Request for formal mediation Article Ratiaria (talk)  Submitted 09 Dec 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Codrinb (talk · contribs), filing party TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Ratiaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Aedava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Talk:Ratiaria#Why_remove_these_categories_and_stubs Issues to be mediated Primary issues Replacing antiquity related categories with modern Bulgaria only categories. The following were repeatedly removed without warning or attempt to discuss: Category:Ancient cities Category:Ancient Roman geography Category:Dacia Category:Dacian towns Category:Roman Empire Category:Former populated places in the Balkans Category:Former populated places in Eastern Europe Invoking the overcategorization advice in Wikipedia:Categorization stands for some of categories, but not for the majority, and not in the case of a new article which needs more exposure and editors. Removal of stubs/categories related to antiquity (and not to Bulgaria), invoking that the article is not a stub anymore. {{Romania-hist-stub}} {{AncientRome-stub}} Creation of a category on the spot, Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria, to further eliminate categories related to ancient world or surrounding geography, by cleverly invoking Wikipedia:Categorization suggestions Removal of categories without prior attempt to discuss The goal of this article was to present an ancient Dacian town, later an important Roman city. From the beginning, the article clearly mentioned the location in modern Bulgaria. The intention of the existing categories and stubs was to bring interested users and especially editors to participate constructively. The article is intended to be added to portals/projects on Ancient World, Ancient Rome, Dacia, Thrace. While the location of this settlement is in modern Bulgaria, removing all references to the ancient history categories and the replacement with solely modern Bulgaria related categories, is very detrimental to the article. This effectively prevents users and especially editors to easily find this article, now buried in too many levels of categories and, all it does shows a subjective nationalistic Bulgarian sentiment. This city was built long before Bulgaria existed and deserves categories that show that. I think there is clearly room for both Bulgaria-related and ancient world categories, even if some of them connect 5 or 10 levels deep to the same parent. They can serve at least as "tags" that clarify the identity of this city in a fuzzy Balkans history, full of invasions and change of ownerships. Varied categories should be present at least, until the article is fully developed by interested parties, although I think they will be still useful after. Response to more assaults The history of Romania did not only take place in the territory of Romania as of December 2010. It includes Romania with its entire past and dependent, lost or gained, ancient or modern territories. As for any other country. Your argument is laughable. By your logic, Canada should not be included in the history of France since now is an independent country. Laughable. There are historical connections everywhere. For example, it is not clear where Aedava (the other subject of contention) is, but might as well be in the region called later Caliacra. If you look in this article, links to both History of Bulgaria and History of Romania peacefully coexist, as it should be. Places like Ratiaria and Adedava belong to the history of Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Ancient Macedonia, Goths, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Bulgar Empire, Romania and Bulgaria. All of these nations/countries can include it in their history categories and stubs, as they owned/conquered/lost the land or had battles or raids or leaders who been there. That would only bring more people, users and editors to collaborate and create quickly an article that converges eventually, the whole idea of Wikipedia. As for whether I do or do not understand the categorization rules, read above, below and look at Talk:Ratiaria and Talk:Aedava for logical arguments. All you did is to cleverly swallow other categories (Ancient Rome, Dacia, Balkans) into newly created Bulgarian categories, by following a loophole in categorization rules that suggests to remove the parent, effectively Bulgarizing everything. Do you want me to create a child categories named Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria where Dacians used to live and remove your parent category? This is insane. I suggest your read Wikipedia:Overcategorization and especially Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Also check Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories for when to diffuse or not. The "third party" who came to disagree, Gligan, is another Bulgarian nationalist... Very objective! Strength in numbers! It is only showing the extent of the attempt to Bulgarize this article and the lack of interest in real history or objectivity. How about some Swedish and Chinese who want to disagree? Anyone?! By your logic, all Romanian towns and regions have to have category connected to the Bulgarian Empire, because all of what is now Romania used to be Bulgarian for certain periods. Wallachia, Banat, Transylvania and so on have to have category former territories of Bulgaria. But I doubt you like the idea. Only if it is connected to your nationalism. When are you going to understand that Dacia has little to do with Romania, as ancient Thrace has little to do with Bulgaria. We don't have any category that is linked with Bulgaria for any Thracian settlement located outside the territory of modern Bulgaria and we should not have. The same is for Romania. And of course that any settlement or region located in modern countries have to have categories connected to the corresponding modern country. You have "Romanized" categories for settlements in Romania, which is normal and it is normal to have the same for Bulgaria. You have categories "Former populated places in Romania" and "Category:Roman towns and cities in Romania" and you are complaining that there are Bulgarian categories for the same thing. What the hell is going wrong with you???? You are not the first Romanian nationalist I argue with for total stupidities and I grow more more tired of that. --Gligan (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Codrinb (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Disagree. While I respect Codrinb's desire to request dispute resolution, I fail to see the reason to skip Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my opinion, there is zero necessity for escalation just yet. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Disagree. It seems that User:Codrinb is completely unaware of categorization rules. The categories "Dacian towns", "Roman towns and cities in Bulgaria" and "Former populated places in Bulgaria" eliminate the need for categories "Dacia", "Ancient cities", "Ancient Roman geography", "Roman Empire" and "Former populated places in the Balkans". And anything linking those two ancient towns to modern Romania is laughable and ridiculous because Romania is not Dacia, the Romanians are not Dacians and they are not located in the territory of Romania. And "Romania-hist-stub" is not connected because there was no Romania at that time, so if any article has to be inside that template, then it must be for a place situated in modern Romania (which is not the case) or linked with the history of Romania (again not the case because such a country did not exist in that period). --Gligan (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Aedava

Aedava Request for formal mediation Article Aedava (talk)  Submitted 09 Dec 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Codrinb (talk · contribs), filing party TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Aedava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ratiaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Talk:Aedava Issues to be mediated Primary issues Removal of stubs/categories related to Romania (and not to Bulgaria) without any warning or clearly stated reason {{Romania-hist-stub}} Replacing antiquity related categories with modern Bulgaria only categories. The following were repeatedly removed without warning or attempt to discuss: Category:Ancient cities Category:Dacia Category:Former populated places in the Balkans Category:Former populated places in Eastern Europe Invoking the overcategorization advice in Wikipedia:Categorization stands for some of categories, but not for the majority, and not in the case of a new article which needs more exposure and editors. Creation of a category on the spot, Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria, to further eliminate categories related to ancient world or surrounding geography, by cleverly invoking Wikipedia:Categorization suggestions Removal of categories without prior attempt to discuss The goal of this article was to present an ancient Dacian town, later known to the Romans, potentially used by the. From the beginning, the article clearly mentioned the location in modern Bulgaria. The intention of the existing categories and stubs was to bring interested users and especially editors to participate constructively. The article is intended to be added to portals/projects on Ancient World, Ancient Rome, Dacia, Thrace. While the location of this settlement is in modern Bulgaria, removing all references to the ancient history categories and the replacement with solely modern Bulgaria related categories, is very detrimental to the article. This effectively prevents users and especially editors to easily find this article, now buried in too many levels of categories and, all it does shows a subjective nationalistic Bulgarian sentiment. This city was built long before Bulgaria existed and deserves categories that show that. I think there is clearly room for both Bulgaria-related and ancient world categories, even if some of them connect 5 levels deep to the same parent. They can serve at least as "tags" that clarify the identity of this city in a fuzzy Balkans history, full of invasions and change of ownerships. Varied categories should be present at least, until the article is fully developed by interested parties, although I think they will be still useful after. The Dacian history is a integral part of the Romanian history and having the {{Romania-hist-stub}} is simply noting that. It is not a territorial claim or nationalistic propaganda. The article should also be marked as a stub part of Bulgarian history if needed. It is only fair. There are many regions of this world included in the history of multiple nations, as we didn't live in isolation from each other (especially in the Balkans). The whole idea is to invite editors to participate in the creation of it, with objective facts. The ideas of some Bulgarian historians that Dacians have nothing to do with Romanians nor that they are connected with the Thracians, out of shear nationalism or in order to present a more convenient version of Bulgarian history (removing the very inconvenient Daco-Thracian connection and Daco-Romanian continuity from the picture) should have no bearing on these kinds of articles, since it is highly subjective and detrimental. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Codrinb (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Disagree per my response on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ratiaria fork. This dispute has long been solved via WP:3O. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Blue Army (Poland)

Blue Army (Poland) Formal mediation case Article Blue Army (Poland) (talk)  Submitted 13 Jan 2011 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users hallersarmy (talk · contribs) Faustian (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Blue Army (Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Faustian continues to edit my submissions with acrid and salacious material rather than educated text. He selects those quotes which appear very damaging. He also cites a source and then in the footnotes runs multiple lines of text to emphasize his point. I understand a foot note as a guidepost to send the reader to the original article for further reading. Not to have selected content repeated I added a new section with 2 paragraphs pertinent to this new section. Faustian changes the heading, which alters the whole content of the section, and then adds his own supporting documentation which has nothing to do with the original heading and subject of the section. Additional issues (added by other parties) Recently had similar editing technique with the article 1918 Pogrom Lwow. Questioned sources and showed that these sources appear to be in error. Faustian's answer was to add more salacious material to back up his point, rather than address the disputed point. Malik Shabazz has sent me a warning not to Edit this article anymore and that I may be blocked for editing a page 3 times in a day. This appears to be a rule of Wiki, though Faustian also has edited more than 3 times in a day and has not received such a warning. Shabazz was very rude in the last editing battle, but did acknowledge he was wrong in his actions (read my Talk page) I tried to use the discussion page and it comes up with a solicitation to expand the article for France, Poland and Military topics. Hallersarmy (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Hallersarmy is engaged in edit-warring (see here:[4] ) by removing sourced, referenced material (a diff of his edit: [5]). I used footnotes not to gratutiously add details but because I felt they were helpful to the article while not being quite important enought to be in the body of the article. I have initiated a discussion here:[6]. It is incorrect to label details taken from a book published by Corenll University Press as "not educated."Faustian (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Faustian changed both title and content in a section I wrote. By doing so, the original meaning was totally changed, to suit the needs of Faustian. He promptly filled his new material with references which had nothing to do with the meaning of the original article section. He should have started a new section if he felt it was needed and leave the original section to stand on its own. Faustian concludes one of the references he used turned out to be flawed in a different article, so why use it again? His lengthy footnotes appear to be a simple way to work in his point of view into the original article page without being located within the body of the text. In the body, they would not likely be accepted, but down at a footnote, they get in. Looking at various other articles, this use of very lengthy footnoting is not seen regularly. Faustian also edits the lengthy footnotes to serve his own view, not for historical accuracy. Hallersarmy (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC) The original section was based exclusively on a non-peer reviewed source ( a geneology web page with articles submitted by members). See discussion of this source here: [7]. It seems to be used to push a POV in contradiction to inforkmation from legitimate sources which do meet wikipedia qualifications for reliability, as per the discussion I linked to above.Faustian (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Faustian is once again in error. My original section on Jews in Haller's Army included a reference to an article written by Ed Goldstein and published in the Gesher Galician Newsletter, 2002, a reputable Jewish Genealogical and Historical journal. Check the history of the page. NOWHERE, did I list it as a webpage article. Faustian added the web page information, I did not. I understand that webpages may not be as reliable as published printed works, therefore I went to the original printed version in a Jewish publication rather than the same article on a webpage. Though some webpages are more accurate than published works. That is what we have to determine. Hallersarmy (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Hallersarmy (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. There has not been an adequate volume of discussion or attempts at prior dispute resolution made to date. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes that have not been resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, such as requests for comments, third opinions, or informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I recommend that you file for mediation at the Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for more details and instructions on filing a case there. If informal mediation there does not prove successful, a request for formal mediation can then be made. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Alexander Graham Bell

Alexander Graham Bell Request for formal mediation Article Alexander Graham Bell (talk)  Submitted 21 May 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Gwillhickers (talk · contribs), filing party Example2 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Alexander Graham Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Link here to attempts at dispute resolution. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation 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 [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/ name_of_dispute**|talk page]]. Agree. GWillHickers (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Completely disagree, the so-called aggrieved party engaged in an edit war to establish his use of a redundant stamp image in the article. When other editors disputed the use of the image, instead of accepting wp:agf submissions, continued to forward his case without consensus, erroneously "tagging" the article as exhibiting a lack of neutrality, a claim that no other editor accepted. This is a case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee 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. Request format fixed. Have asked the filing party to submit basic dispute information, without which this request cannot be processed. AGK 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010

Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 Formal mediation case Article Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 (talk)  Submitted 19 May 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs), filing party Cessator (talk · contribs) Baldur (talk · contribs) Black Kite (talk · contribs) Jarkeld (talk · contribs) Physchim62 (talk · contribs) Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs) Pfainuk (talk · contribs) Stone (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Name of the article Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Article title change proposal Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move 2 Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#compromise proposal: Icelandic Icesave loan repayment referendum, 2010 Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010#Requested move 3 Issues to be mediated Primary issues Cannot reach a consensus over the name for the article, though both sides agree that the current name is sub-optimal. (This is the 3rd move request and there seems to be a failure to reach consensus again it's time for a neutral party to step in.) Note: I have reworded this issue. In its previous iteration it did not fairly reflect on all the involved parties. AGK 17:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation 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. Agree. Lotsofmagnets (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Cessator (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Agree. Jarkeld (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Agree. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. The parties have all been notified of this request to have the dispute mediated, so the seven day limit starts now. AGK 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) That's been seven days. Are the parties who have not yet commented not interested in pursuing mediation? Would it be impossible to proceed without them? AGK 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I just added myself. Not that it makes a huge difference, but there we are. Also reduced the number of parties to nine (since I was listed twice). To answer your question, I would be concerned that continuing without User:Icelandic Viking POWER would mean that any consensus might not stick: he opened two of the three RMs and has been - how can I put this politely? - one of the more determined in favour of his position. He's not edited in the least week (and has only edited once in the last two weeks), which may or may not mean something. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Reject. Not all parties responded promptly to the request. In the event that interest in pursuing mediation of this dispute re-emerges, a new request may be filed. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning WABC (AM)

WABC (AM) Request for formal mediation Article WABC (AM) (talk)  Submitted 20 May 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Necrat (talk · contribs), Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute WABC (AM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Discusson on both Neutralhomer's talk page AND the site's talk page. Issues to be mediated Primary issues "WABC Country" on "HD2" "Neutralhomer" continually ads on information that "WABC Country". This information is factually incorrect, and other users have sited sources to indicate as such. Yet when people remove the incorrect information, "Neutralhomer" flags the removal as vandalisim, when in fact the removal is correct. On both his talk page and the talk page here, links to information stating that the corrections made are correct and his addition are incorrect have been placed. Additional issues (added by other parties) Neutralhomer fails to respond to the comments about his edits. Parties' agreement to mediation 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. Agree. Necrat (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. The history of the article in question makes worrying reading. A perusal of the recent changes to the page yields multiple reversions by both the involved parties and a general failure, from what I see, to pursue discussion over the disputed material. Irrespective of whether this dispute proceeds to mediation (the likelihood of which I make no comment about at this time), the parties will need to refrain from edit warring on the article or they may find themselves blocked for disruptive editing. A dispute can only proceed to mediation if both parties have a genuine desire to have a neutral third party mediate between them. Edit warring is not suggestive of this being the case. The parties should keep this in mind. AGK 19:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC) AGK, I have flagged the other user for edit warring and will proceed with that route. WIKIpedia does not make it easy to resolve these types of conflicts. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Necrat (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Reject. Mediation is for disputes in which the parties are in disagreement purely because of differences in editorial opinion. This does not appear to be the case here. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Electronic body music

Electronic body music Formal mediation case Article Electronic body music (talk)  Submitted 07 Jun 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Vampider (talk · contribs), filing party 94.134.26.0 (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute 3RR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Issues to be mediated Primary issues Disruptive edits by abusive banned user, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Breathtaker) now editing as IP hopper. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Vampider (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. From the information given here, it is not clear that this dispute is appropriate for or would benefit from formal mediation. Complaints about disruptive edits by banned users should be referred to an administrator at the appropriate noticeboard. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Flash mob

Flash mob Formal mediation case Article Flash mob (talk)  Submitted 08 Jun 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Mkdw (talk · contribs), filing party Hermitage (talk · contribs) (this user has also been using their IP to appear as a second editor to support their own viewpoint 72.194.209.242) I've also notified Ckatz (talk · contribs) about this. Articles concerned in this dispute Flash mob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Flash_mob#In_Popular_Culture.3F Issues to be mediated Inclusion of an episode of Weeds in a Popular Culture section. Personally, I think this is unnecessary; an admin had already made a decision. This is a case of a new editor that does not really understand properly citing sources nor their importance, or what should be included in an article and what should not. Attempts were made to discuss and notify this user of the affecting policies and this user continues to ignore those policies. The article Flash mob receives a lot of spam. These usually include examples of publicity stunts that do not fit the definition of flash mobs, or non-notable flash mobs that happen like at a university where a bunch of students did one. Literally hundreds of flash mobs occur each year. User:Hermitage adds an In Popular Culture with content April 19. It was immediate removed by administrator User:Ckatz here. Re-added by Hermitage May 9 Removed and re-added a few times until I added a {{fact}} May 23 Removed on June 1 after no citation attempt was made per WP:VERIFY. Since then the user has kept re-adding it with out citations until today where he's linked Youtube videos and Yahoo Answers which in no way meet the criteria for WP:CITE. Also been called a vandal in restore attempts by Hermitage, and subsequently undone by Ckatz here noting its not vandalism but the repeated attempts to add the content are. Also, this minor trivia does not contribute to the article in ways described at WP:MoS guidelines for WP:TRIVIA and non-discriminant In Popular Culture sections. I see no reason this should be added to the article as more spam. Additional issues (added by other parties) For details, please see Talk:Flash mob, specifically the discussions under the headings "In Popular Culture?" and "request for mediation". Hermitage (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I did not attempt to use a sock puppet. I made one or two edits without realizing that I wasn't logged in, but it was not part of any nefarious plan. Note also that the original suggestion to add this content didn't come from me (or from a sock puppet!); again, see the talk page under "In Popular Culture". Hermitage (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Mkdwtalk 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Agree Hermitage (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Seems to be a simple dispute, so I'll defer you to third opinions and the mediation cabal for now. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC) As an additional comment, I would advise in the strongest possible terms that the parties avoid editing through secondary accounts and that accusations of sock puppetry not be made in the course of discussions about article content. Complaints regarding sock puppetry should be filed at sock puppetry investigations and not be allowed to poison meaningful discussion or attempts at dispute resolution. AGK 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Time travel

Time travel Request for formal mediation Article Time travel (talk)  Submitted 27 May 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users AarCart (talk · contribs), filing party Ckatz (talk · contribs) Materialscientist (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Time_travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fermi Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Visible spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Valentin Koulikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Talk:Time_travel#ON_RECENT_REVERTED_ON_Time_Travel Talk:Visible_spectrum#Human_perception_of_UV_spectra_light User_talk:AarCart#Visible_spectrum User_talk:AarCart#Warning User_talk:AarCart#AfD_Nomination:_Valentin_Koulikov User_talk:AarCart#Rebuttal Issues to be mediated Primary issues The editing done by Ckatz and Materialscientist is neither well-informed nor objective. The articles contain links and references to secondary sources, and are easily verifiable to the average reader. Some of the ideas are so simple that a high-schooler can understand them, and it seems absurd, indeed against any common sense that such elementary ideas have to be backed by additional literature. Other references are to experimentally-proven facts as far back as 1979, which have since been confirmed by many other researchers in the fields, and are very worthy of note. I believe that the readers of wikipedia live in a world where information is free, it is their right, and it is very useful to them, especially when the pages concern emerging fields in science and the information they contain is strongly verifiable. Concerning Valentin Koulikov's biography (which is marked for a deletion initiated by these same editors as above), all that I want to say is that he is a real, living scientist. He is well-established and he has had dozens of scientific publications to his credit. Additionally, he has proposed interesting ideas (On Time travel, the Fermi Paradox, etc.) and they have been published by respected scientific journals, and have been referenced by other secondary sources, which makes him, in my eyes, worth noting, or as wikipedia says "notable" to the general public who have a right to know and be informed. Additional issues (added by other parties) Please note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin Koulikov closed with a near-unanimous consensus of "delete", the lone exception being AarCart. Koulikov, the scientist whose theories are the basis for this mediation request, was deemed not to meet the criteria for WP:PROF, and the article was described as a self-promotion page. --Ckatzchatspy 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The origin of this conflict might be in personal views of AarCart on WP:RS (and maybe WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PRIMARY), which do not comply with relevant wikipedia policies as illustrated in this AFD discussion. Many statements of AarCart are claimed to be supported by reliable secondary sources, which neither I nor some other editors observe (see, e.g. talk:Time travel). Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation 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. Agree. AarCart (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee 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. Users all notified. AGK 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Reject. Parties did not indicate their willingness to participate in the mediation. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat 5 Formal mediation case Article Prem Rawat (talk)  Submitted 08 Jun 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), filing party Jayen466 (talk · contribs) Maelefique (talk · contribs) Momento (talk · contribs) PatW (talk · contribs) Rainer P. (talk · contribs) Revera (talk · contribs) Rumiton (talk · contribs) Savlonn (talk · contribs) Will_Beback (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Divine Light Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Elan Vital (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hans Ji Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lord of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Satpal Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Millennium '73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Teachings of Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Techniques of Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-22/prem rawat Issues to be mediated Primary issues The Mediation Prem Rawat 4 was closed on the basis that the Wiki Project Prem Rawat Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat would take forward the matters set out in the mediation. After some initial progress ([8]) the project reached an impasse and work on the project articles came to a halt, with a tacit agreement that the articles where at least ‘stable’ if not of overall high quality (there was general agreement that the Millennium '73 article set a standard which should be aspired to). Two editors who had been topic banned for a year, returned to editing the Prem Rawat article in May, and a request for mediation was submitted. This mediation has rapidly descended into the pre-Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4 conflict; and although there appears to be a potential settlement of the very narrow scope (a single sentence) of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-22/prem_rawat it is clear that the Rawat articles need formal mediation. Disputed sources: Geaves; Patrick; Conway & Siegelman; 'Time' magazine; Collier; Randi; Watts; Finch; Alridge; Charity Commission for England & Wales; IRS. Additional issues (added by other parties) As a former Mediation Cabal mediator for this article, I can attest to the need for continual monitoring, but not full mediation of this article. I feel it likely that peace can be kept on this article by simple, occasional checks-ins by uninvolved administrators. Ronk01 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Additional issue 2 Last summer we used a form of mediation in which the mediators served as moderators for Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat. When the disputes were resolved that relationship ended. Perhaps the simplest and best thing would be to find one or two uninvolved editors to serve in that capacity again.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Agree PatW (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Disagree. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC). See Talk page. Agree Revera (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Note: Parties all notified. AGK 11:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. See also talk page. AGK 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative

Genesis creation narrative Request for formal mediation Article Genesis creation narrative (talk)  Submitted 12 Jul 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users Gniniv (talk · contribs), filing party Raeky (talk · contribs) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) Mann_jess (talk · contribs) Professor marginalia (talk · contribs) Rossnixon (talk · contribs) Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) Apokryltaros (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Genesis creation narrative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Attempted discussion and page protection on both Talk:Objections to evolution Talk:Genesis creation narrative Issues to be mediated Primary issues YEC and Pro-Evolution Bias Issue 1: Gniniv has petitioned that WP:NPOV is being violated. He claims that considerable minority viewpoints (Young Earth Creationism and Biblical literalism) are being suppressed from inclusion in the above articles by the majority of the editors. He cites the edit wars that have occurred from User: Til Eulenspiegel's efforts to edit Genesis creation narrative as an example of unfair WP:NPOV in the majority of the editors. Issue 2: Violation of WP:CONS in the above articles. Editors involved refuse to compromise and allow alternative interpretations of the evidence involved. Additional issues (added by other parties) Not all parties agree to mediation. Gniniv asked what processes he should follow during an editing dispute, I outlined them here and advised him NEVER to immediately jump to a RFM, but his first response was to create this. There is NOT consensus between all parties for a RFM, only Gniniv. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) This insouciant request for mediation is completely unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Gniniv's ideas of "neutral point of view" is to rewrite the articles in questions in order to lend undue weight to what is, at best, a fringe minority, as well as to cast unnecessary, unreasonable doubt on what is otherwise unanimous scientific consensus (i.e., suggesting that there is ongoing research in Intelligent Design even though there is none, as well as implying and or stating that no one has actually observed evolution in action). Gniniv has also been repeatedly asked to provide specific suggestions to improve specific parts of the articles in question, as well as to not turn Wikipedia talkpages into forums. He has repeatedly ignored both requests. Editors who do not agree with Gniniv are directly or indirectly accused of being illogical and having unscientific, political and religious motives for wanting to support general scientific consensus.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The above comment is not the first time that the position of world faiths with millions, or billions, of adherents has been declared a "frine minority". With this assertion repeatedly coming up from a small number of very authoritative-sounding editors, I predict that sooner or later, a mediation process will be required to determine unambiguously whether or not certain theological positions are to be determined as "fringe" or "heresy", if that is neutral, and if so to determine which religious viewpoints are "fringe" or "heresy", and which are permissible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Then how come you have not explained how adhering to a literal interpretation of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible is scientific, and how come you refuse to explain why Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, and their political cronies are not a fringe minority in the scientific community if these people refuse to participate in science to begin with? I mean, why is it fair for scholars to regard demonstrated pseudosciences as legitimate sciences? Why should we regard objections that are solely/deliberately religious and political in nature, i.e., demanding that science is wrong wrong wrong because you were told that the world is less than 10,000 years old because the Bible said so, to be a valid view point in discussing matters of science?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) We are discussing "matters of science"? You call these religions "demonstrated pseudosciences", but clearly if it had truly been "demonstrated" to everyones satisfaction, there would be little or no controversy apparent. I don;t think the people who declare religious cretion "debunked" have demonstrated anything to everyone's complete satisafaction and have failed to convince everyone with their arguments thus far, which more often than not, call for anyone disagreeing with them to be removed from the equation, to ensure "consensus" (more like to ensure "conformity" with their philosophical POV) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) It's quite apparent that you are deliberately misinterpreting my statements in order to accuse me of being unfair and bigoted against all religions. If Scientific Creationism is not debunked, and is actually a science, then how come its proponents refuse to provide physical evidence for their statements, rely solely on arguments based on logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance and obedience, and, refuse to participate in science? If you intend to continue misinterpreting my statements in order to paint me as being anti-religious, would it be at all possible to at least explain why Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design should be considered legitimate sciences, AND explain why regarding them as a pseudoscience or fringe movement is tantamount to an unfair, unscholarly attack on all religions everywhere?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) If it is debunked, lots of people must have missed it and not gotten the word, or been shown exactly where and how it was debunked. But we aren't even discussing Scientific Creationism here. This is about wikipedia ruling the sacred texts of major world religions to be debunked fringe, which is somewhat jumping the gun in pushing world opinion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Actually we are discussing Scientific Creationism here in the Wikipedia article I'm concerned with ("Objections to Evolution"), and you continue to ignore my request for you to explain why the literal interpretations of sacred texts need to have a say in the scientific community.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, I hadn't noticed this RfM covered that article as well, I have no idea what is going on there, as I don't watch it and never read it. I think you may be right about the scientific community being more relevant to that article; presumably each article should be treated according to its unique scope rather than a boilerplate solution, although they were put in the same RfM. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC) If I was talking about the Genesis Creation Narrative, do you honestly think I would continue droning on and on about the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, or continually badger you about why it is imperative for a "dispassionate scholar" to treat what has been demonstrated to be a religiously motivated pseudoscientific, anti-science movement and the scientific community with equal weight? As far as I've seen, your extreme eagerness to attack me as being an anti-religious bigot, as well as your extraordinary reluctance to realize that you are misreading my statements (assuming that your misreading is accidental and not deliberate) is not convincing me that this request for mediation is sincere.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I would agree that this RfM was unwise to throw editors from two completely different debates together; like I said, I have no idea what may be going on with that debate on that other article, but many aspects would not be applicable from one to the other And please accept this apology, for not noticing that this was done, and assuming you had meant the GCN debate at first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) This mediation is completely unnecessary and is really just an example of further disruption. The editor who has asked for mediation just started editing the page days ago and has barely partaken in the normal processes of talk page discussion to this point. In regards to Til comment above, all religious beliefs are treated equally here on Wikipedia. Some religious beliefs may be more popular than others but none of them are on par with dispassionate scholarship. These beliefs, when relevent, should be mentioned as religious beliefs and not as alternate views from those put forth by scholars. Til knowns this but refuses to accept it, and now it appears he has a friend who is even more eager to cause disruption. Mediation is not necessary, but further discussion at ANI might be.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Til, you know full well that Apokry was not calling any religion fringe. This has been discussed repeatedly. Gniniv thinks that WP:NPOV means adding in his personal opinions to articles without consideration of WP:Weight, reliable sources which actually back up that opinion, and without any responses or context from the rest of the world, as though they were entirely uncontested. He's been repeatedly warned for being disruptive when he doesn't get his way. Mediation will solve nothing except wasting everyone's time trying, once again, to fruitlessly explain policy to an editor who doesn't care. Jess talk cs 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC) When supposed "dispassionate scholarship" is being used to endorse one school of thought's favorite Bible interpretation, and any other Bible interpretations are being labeled "fringe", there's a problem, Real, honest scholarship does not do this, but indicates there is disagreement about a subject when there really is, and does not pretend there is only one legitimate interpretation that "everyone" supposedly agrees on, lest they be "fringe" and not count as part of the "everybody" who supposedly agrees unanimously how to interpret it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Til, the idea that one can do science using Bible interpretations instead of actually going out and doing science is, at very, very best, adhered to by an extreme fringe minority within the scientific community. If you come to the conclusion that my original comment here is referring to religious communities at large, as opposed to within the scientific community, you have misread my statement.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The only policy I've seen Gniniv use appropriately is WP:TE in reference to himself on Talk:Objections to evolution. I find it abusive, that a user who believes "organisms are open systems" needs to be sourced, can think they can contribute positively to NPOV. - RoyBoy 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Gniniv (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC) agree Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC) disagree --Mr Fink (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC) confused. I don't know what the point of mediation would be. Gniniv is in a distinct minority and is being effectively marginalized by the community of editors. Mediation cannot and should not change that. If there are behavioral issues, they probably should be dealt with elsewhere, but as far as I can tell this is an issue of consensus going against Gniniv's editorial perspective and mediation cannot help with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) not named as a party, and not interested in mediation. This is just part of an attempt to push extreme fringe views way beyond WP:DUE. Recentisms like Young Earth Creationism (contemporary, that is, not medieval, which is to be discussed in historical context) have no place in a serious article on biblical philology and exegesis. There are other articles dedicated to this sort of stuff. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Block Gniniv is currently blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring. The block will expire on the 15th of July. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days Request for formal mediation Article Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (talk)  Submitted 17 Aug 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users xxpreaditorxx (talk · contribs), filing party Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) Beetstra (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bovineboy2008#Reliable_Sources Issues to be mediated Primary issues Whether www.media-cows.com is a reliable source or not. Did not address my point about blogs specifically that Destructoid, a blog, is considered reliable. A review is an opinion, so a person cannot be an authority on opinion. There is a page protection currently that does not allow review site to be added to the reception section. Reception section should not be devoted to the largest gaming sites for that does not reflect the full reception of the game. Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. Xxpreaditorxx (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Not all parties responded to request. For the Committee, AGK 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation concerning United States Casualties of War

United States Casualties of War Request for formal mediation Article United States military casualties of war (talk)  Submitted 31 Aug 2010 Mediator Not yet assigned Status Rejected Notes None For internal use: Delete case page Dispute specifics Involved users ShanYang (talk · contribs), filing party Arthur Smart (talk · contribs) Articles concerned in this dispute United States military casualties of war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted Informal discussion on subject talk page. Poll taken of editors involved. Issues to be mediated Primary issues Revert warring carried out by Art Smart in regards to an edit that is not relevent to the article. Inclusion of a source that does not meet with Wikipedia Standards. Additional issues (added by other parties) See filing party's frivolous incident report on this issue for more details. With the article name change from United States casualties of war to United States military casualties of war (i.e., adding the word military), no dispute still exists. Filing party now threatens to undo all his prior contributions to the article previously in dispute. His prior contributions are now part of the article, and as such, belong to Wikipedia and the public, not him. For him now to undo all his prior contributions en-masse, without regard to merit, would constitute vandalism. Parties' agreement to mediation All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Agree. ShanYang (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) ShanYang ShanYang (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I always agree to mediation, although I see no dispute still remaining. This issue is now moot due to the article name change. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section. Reject. Please file a mediation cabal request and seek mediation through that forum. As this is a relatively low-level dispute, formal mediation is unwarranted at this point. If the MedCab does not resolve things, a new request should then be filed. For the Committee, AGK 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)