Involved parties

• Ahwaz (talk · contribs)
• Asterion (talk · contribs)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs)
• Ferick (talk · contribs)
• Ilir pz (talk · contribs)
• KOCOBO (talk · contribs)
• Litany (talk · contribs)
• Phil Boswell (talk · contribs)
• Phildav76 (talk · contribs)
• Osli73 (talk · contribs)
• Reinoutr (talk · contribs)
• Telex (talk · contribs)
• TSO1D (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

• Ahwaz [1]
• Asterion [2]
• Ferick [3]
• Ilir pz [4]
• KOCOBO [5]
• Litany [6]
• Phil Boswell [7]
• Phildav76 [8]
• Osli73 [9]
• Reinoutr [10]
• Telex [11]
• TSO1D [12]

Two other users, Bormalagurski and HolyRomanEmperor, have also been involved in the dispute but are currently blocked. I have not informed them of this mediation as they will be unable to participate in it. -- ChrisO 09:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article talk pages:

• Talk:Kosovo, Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 9 [13]

User talk pages:

• User:Ferick [14]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Extensive discussion on article talk page since May 2006

Issues to be mediated

• Should Kosovo be described as "one of two autonomous provinces in Serbia, the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia"?

Brief background: all of our reputable published sources (books, encyclopedias, media reports etc) describe Kosovo as a province of Serbia under United Nations administration. This is reflected in the article's introduction. User:Ferick believes that this is inaccurate and instead wishes the article to say that Kosovo "is located in the south-east Europe" without reference to Serbia. He has repeatedly deleted any mention of Kosovo as part of Serbia from the article's intro. This has resulted in a long-running edit war between Ferick and a large number of other editors, which has resulted in the article being protected for extended periods.

The issue has been discussed extensively in the article talk page but we have seem to have reached an impasse. Ferick has expressed an unwillingness to discuss sources or abide by WP:NPOV, which has made it difficult to find any common ground. His position is supported by User:Ilir pz but otherwise the majority of editors (most of whom are not Serbs, by the way) have already reached a consensus on the existing introduction.

I don't particularly expect this mediation to get anywhere, given Ferick's apparent rejection of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. However, for the sake of ticking the box in the dispute resolution procedure I would like the Mediation Committee to consider the matter. -- ChrisO 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several users have added comments below. Please note that "Discussions will take place on a mediation subpage", to quote the rules given at the top of this page. I've temporarily commented out the comments for now - they're still there, just hidden. If this mediation is accepted I'll move them across to a discussion page. In the meantime, please don't add further comments! -- ChrisO 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree. -- ChrisO 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree TSO1D 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree —Phil | Talk 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I should point out that my contribution to this article consists entirely of partially swapping round the two halves of the introduction in order that the subject be described before sailing into complex diplomatic issues; I am relatively neutral as to how soon the mention of the province's status needs to be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree --KOCOBO 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree -- Phildav76 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Disagree--Ferick 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment:Your framing of this issue is very disingenuous. For more info see my comments here[[15]]Ferick 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of all parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{Archived here to remove from unnecessary subpage. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I am seeking mediation assistance with regards a dispute concerning my attempt to tidy the wiki by removal of redlinks as per What not to link and Administrator Ambi’s dogmatic refusal to allow any adjustments along these lines. I have attempted to discuss this matter with her – and that discussion has gotten heated on both sides (see combined talk pages). In particular I am concerned by long term redlinks and on that point I am more than happy to concede that some of my removals may be too early for all wikipedians but I do not concede that redlinks should be allowed to stand ad infinitum. For a single example (although the dispute is not about this page per se) this article St. Nicholas' Collegiate Church which has not been added to or adjusted since April 5, 2005 is in Ambi’s view (as posted on her user page) to be quite good. I would not be allowed to remove the redlinks on that page that have been there for almost a year and which make the article look clumsy and feel unprofessional. If I did I would be threatened that my alterations are close to vandalism and then would be threatened with blocking if such changes continue. Indeed Ambi has even gone so far as to revert redlinks that I personally created in my own major articles. The continuum of our conflict is probably that I consider that I am following both the consensus view/s and the encyclopedic view that redlinks are generally clumsy and should be discouraged – and if not discouraged totally able to be removed when a reasonable amount of time has passed. I also have a concern with Ambi’s method of administrator support but that may be her way of doing things and beyond mediation. Whilst it may be impossible to clear up this matter perfectly there must be a way to gain middle ground on this and not be threatened on every edit. Please can you help? VirtualSteve 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I may have been a bit rude in communicating things to VirtualSteve, but some of the things he's been trying to do are completely against policy and longstanding practice. He seems to think I've got some problem with him personally - I've got no problem with him writing articles for links that were previously red or delinking stupid ones, but I do very strongly object to delinking redlinks to perfectly (and in his case, quite often indisputably) obvious and necessary topics. Ambi 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VirtualSteve has requested an extension of time to put this request into the new format; I've told him that will be fine. Lets give this a week (the time he requested) for him to put it in the ((RFMR)) format, and then give it another look. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn - Ambi refuses to respond - no mediation possible. VirtualSteve 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. AndriyK (talk · contribs)
2. Halibutt (talk · contribs)
3. Grafikm_fr (talk · contribs)
4. Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs)
5. TruthCrusader (talk · contribs)
6. Irpen (talk · contribs)
7. Kuban kazak (talk · contribs)
8. Tufkaa (talk · contribs)
9. PatrickFisher (talk · contribs)
10. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
11. Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper [16]
• Talk:Lviv [17]
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Battle of the Lower Dnieper [18]

User talk pages:

• User_talk:AndriyK [[19]]
• User talk:Halibutt [20]
• User talk:Grafikm fr [21]
• User talk:Alex Bakharev [22]
• User talk:TruthCrusader [23]
• User talk:Irpen [24]
• User talk:Kuban kazak [25]
• User talk:Tufkaa [26]
• User talk:PatrickFisher [27]
• User talk:Ghirlandajo [28]
• User_talk:Piotrus [29]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Discussions on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper (Archive 1, Archive 2).
• Discussions on Talk:Lviv
• RfC [30]
• Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) [31]
• A Mediation Cabal was attempted but failed.[32]

Issues to be mediated

The neutrality of using the word "liberate" and its derivative in the context of military operations, specifically in the context of the USSR's taking of Ukraine, Baltic states, Poland etc. from Germany in WWII. The issue is vied differently by the parties:

• In most historical publications, the word "liberate" or "liberation" is used as the dedicated word to describe the action of retaking USSR territory from the Nazis in 1943-1944. Some people argue that this word is not neutral and propose different terms, based solely on political considerations (i.e. on geopolitics and not on historical vocabulary) that would constitute original research and POV. This issue has to be resolved. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The word liberate is generally understood as to set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control [33]. Or "to change from not having freedom to having freedom".

  Athough there is no doubt that Nazi occupation was oppressive and definitely can be characterize as "not having freedom", (re)taking the territories of Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries by the Red Army did not bring freadom to the people. Stalinist regime that was (re)established on those territories resulted in new repressions and one more artificial famine that claimed more than one million human lives. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia. Ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Germans and others) were deported en masse, many people died on the way. Calling this "liberation" is extremely unneutral and can be even considered as offensive by the people who lost their relatives in the famine and the repressions.

  The word "liberate" assumes sympathy to the Soviet Army, which contradicts to WP:NPOV stating that the neutral point of view "is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".--AndriyK 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• We must be more specific when defining the issue: at issue is the use of the word liberate w.r.t. the USSR's taking of Ukraine, etc. from Germany in WWII. For example, there is no significant disagreement about the use of liberate w.r.t. the Allied liberation of France in WWII. -- PatrickFisher 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

1. Agree. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. --AndriyK 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. TruthCrusader 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree. --tufkaa 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Sure. //Halibutt 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. Sure, although I think I am only marginally involved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Agree. -- PatrickFisher 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Requests have 7 days for parties to demonstrate agreement; half the parties to this request have failed to comment in any form.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• User:Wjhonson
• User:Xoloz
• User:Katr67
• User:Fram
• User:trialsanderrors
• User:Dlyons493
• User:Andrew c

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

• Talk:Kittie_May_Ellis [34]
• User:Xoloz [35]
• User:Katr67 [36]
• User:Fram [37]
• User:trialsanderrors [38]
• User:Dlyons493 [39]
• User:Andrew c [40]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• First deletion discussion
• Deletion Review
• WP:AN/I#Wjhonson_reverting_Kitty_May_Ellis_stuff Admin Notice discussion

Issues to be mediated

• The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a WP:RS should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a WP:RS should be based on the other WP:RS, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a WP:RS they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd for Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a WP:RS the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a WP:RS
• A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and WP:RS
• Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as WP:RS
• This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task.
• This article was [hangon] and [underconstruction] with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws.
• And finally WP:AGF should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Is the recreating of an article after it has been deleted (after a deletion review as well), the recreation of said article after a second deletion but under a slightly different name (Kittie May Ellis instead of Kitty May Ellis), the re-recreation of that second article after it in turn has been deleted after an AfD that turned into a speedy delete, and finally starting a deletion review after that recreation again has been deleted a case of WP:POINT?
• Is the instant linking and relinking to said articles in a number of loosely related articles, including the use of external links after the wikipedia articles have been deleted and protected, a case of WP:POINT?
• Is the discussion of this deletion in a number of policy and guideline pages, including the changing of generally accepted guideline text to better fit your ideas, a case of WP:POINT?
• Is the labelling of anyone who disagrees with you a vandal or a liar acceptable behaviour (in WP:CIVIL)?
• Is starting a project on your article because your article gets deleted too often a case of WP:POINT?
• Is the creation of a third article under a different name (Catherine May Ellis), in order to make a redirect to a the deleted and protected articles mentioned above, a case of WP:POINT?

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree. Wjhonson 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Request to be removed as party as I'm on Wikibreak and won't be editing. If that's not an option, I disagree. ~ trialsanderrors 10:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. Fram 12:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. Katr67 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm just the deletion process closer. I'll happily comment, but I don't think I fit as a party... so disagree for now. Xoloz 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 05:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Aquirata (talk · contribs)
• Chris Brennan (talk · contribs)
• Jefffire (talk · contribs)
• Marskell (talk · contribs)
• Piper Almanac (talk · contribs)
• Vorpal_blade (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where ((RFMF)) was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and ((RFM-Request)) was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

• Astrology [41]

User talk pages:

• User:Aquirata [42]
• User:Chris Brennan [43]
• User:Jefffire [44]
• User:Piper Almanac [45]
• User:Vorpal_blade [46]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Large discussions for two months on talk.
• A related AfD touched on these issues without resolution.

Issues to be mediated

• What constitutes a reliable source in terms of the Astrology page and other pages dealing with astrology? Are astrological sources reliable for statistical claims?
• How much respective weight should be given to astrological versus scientific opinion in the astrology and science section? (what constitutes a majority/minority/extreme minority view in this case?)

Additional issues to be mediated

• Size and content of "see also" and "further reading".

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree. Marskell 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. Jefffire 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. Chris Brennan 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Elk Salmon (talk · contribs)
• Georgia guy (talk · contribs)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)
• Kuban kazak (talk · contribs)
• Lensovet (talk · contribs)
• Sascha. (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where ((RFMF)) was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and ((RFM-Request)) was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

• Moscow Metro [47]

User talk pages:

• User:Elk Salmon [48]
• User:Georgia guy [49]
• User:Kuban kazak [50]
• User:Lensovet [51]
• User:Sascha. [52]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Request for comment

Issues to be mediated

• Which version of the table showing the Moscow Metro lines should appear in the article? (Two primary options: here)

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties may add additional issues not brought up in the original request.

• Whether a definition for a Light Metro of one system (e.g. Madrid) is suitable to be used in case of another one (e.g. Moscow): Talk:Moscow Metro#L1/12.

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree lensovet 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree --Sascha. 09:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree Kuban Cossack 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• User:Spahbod
• myself (User:Fullstop)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

• Notice on article talk Page: Parsi#Notice of attempt at external mediation diff
• Notice on user's talk Page: Notice of attempt at external mediation

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• repeated attempts on article talk to determine what User:Spahbod's reason for uncivility and repeated reverts.
• addition of an ((npov)) tag to the page to force discussion, which didn't help.

Issues to be mediated

• Determine if the revert of my edit to Parsi is justified, that is, determine what precisely User:Spahbod reasons for reverting my edits (enumerated under evidence below) are. Repeated attempts to determine this via article talk have failed. His comment to the revert "rv, you have removed sourced material, images and made this into a POV, this is clearly vandalism" [53] is not substantiatable in that no images or material has been deleted.
  Thus, the issues to be mediated are whether I made the article "into a POV", and whether my edits are "clearly vandalism".
• Determine whether anything past or present/reverted Parsi article contradicts that Freddie Mercury is British-Indian Parsi. This was asserted by Spahbod in three edits leading up to [54], and again in [55]. His edits there have since been reverted by other editors, but Spahbod cites the Parsi article as a reference when editing. [56] [57]
• Determine if Spahbod used sockpuppet/fleshpuppet User:Khorshid to get around a 3RR violation. Like Spahbod, Khorshid has never contributed to the Parsi article. I have requested a revert to the ((npov))-flagged state followed by temporary page protection. [58]
• Determine if I acted correctly in the belief that a disagreement of opinion is not grounds for a revert. I repeatedly invited an elucidation of Spahbod's opinion on talk; requested problematic passages to be flagged as such; but even the ((npov)) tag was not sufficient to prevent subsequent reverts.

Evidence

My edits - admittedly badly summarized in the edit's comment - are as follows:

• Expansion of History section. This is by far the most significant edit.
• New section Demographics that incorporates and extends the demographic info formerly in the lede.
• Moved the existing top-level sections "Ethnic origins of the Parsis of India" and "Definition of Parsi" to subsections within a new top-level "Definition and Identity". The content of these sections has changed marginally but the substance has not changed.
• Moved top-level section "The Parsi calendar(s)" to a subsection within a new "Factions, sects, and sections". The content/substance is identical to what it was before.
• Two new additional subsections within "Factions, sects, and sections"
• Move old content from "Prominent Parsis" which was simply a very long list, to its own page.
• Use information from other WP pages to construct a new short "Illustrious Parsis" that also has a link to the long list.
• Cleanup lede. Substance remains intact.
• new Bibliography to list the many sources referred to by my edits.

In Spahbod's last talk message [59] he noted "You changed the whole article from a Parsi ethnicity article to a minor religious minority of India with Indi ethnicity".

Response:
Presuming that this is the justification for his revert, this opinion that I "changed" anything is not correct since the substance of the previous article has been completely incorporated in my edits.

• The article has always been about the "member[s] of the close-knit Zoroastrian community in or from the Indian subcontinent". This has always been the lede sentence, and continues to be the lede sentence in my edit(s). This has always be the topic of the article, and continues to be the topic of the article in my edit(s).
• I neither know what "Indi ethnicity" means, nor (assuming Indi means Indian) would I be so daft as to purport anyone is of "Indian ethnicity". As I have - in all my edits and repeatedly in Talk - established, "Parsi" denotes ethnicity/community. This is how the article has always been, and my edits (now reverted) continue to reflect. That the majority of them are of Indian nationality is a historic development and continues to be true. This is clearly stated in the existing article, as well as in my edits.

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree -- Fullstop 09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: For the following reasons:

• The party who filed the request failed to list it properly on RfM.
• The party who filed it failed to notify the other party as directed, resulting in that party being unable to comply with RfM procedure.

The requesting party may file a new, correctly filed request and correctly notify the other party if mediation is still desired.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Rjensen (talk · contribs)
• Doughboy (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where ((RFMF)) was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and ((RFM-Request)) was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

• Foo [60]

User talk pages:

• User:Example [61]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1 original research & lack of verified sources

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree Rjensen 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Requesting party failed to notify the other party.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• rjensen (talk · contribs)
• jimmuldrow (talk · contribs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1: Balance of "Abolition" section of article
• Issue 2: Whether it is POV to consider "sin" as motivating factor for avolitionists

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree. Rjensen 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Involved parties

• Ragib (talk · contribs)
• Maakhter (talk · contribs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Pro-Indian Bias, no action so far to fix it
• Merge this page

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

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

• Agree.

Maakhter 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Disagree --Ragib 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]