Involved parties

• Ragib (talk · contribs)
• maakhter (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• India

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• In case of Pakistan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) the Line of Control (LoC) is shown as a boundary. Here is the URL for the map used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PakistanNumbered.png

• However, in case of India, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (map used for States and territories of India) Line of Control is not used as a boundary and Pakistani Administered Kashmir is also shown as a part of India. Here is the URL for the map used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg

Additional issues to be mediated

• It is matter of consistency.

There is no need to confuse this issue with the formalities and procedures. The issue is how the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased source can be preserved.

The above links show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.

• What is the standard practice of Wikipedia to show maps of countries?

How it handles the maps of countries where there is a disputed territory? For example, Kashmir is a disputed territory among Pakistan, India, and China.

Maakhter 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[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. Maakhter 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree --Ragib 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Zadanian (talk · contribs)
• Aelffin (talk · contribs)
• Vision Thing (talk · contribs)
• Project2501a (talk · contribs) (See talk page)

Articles involved

• Template:Anarchism sidebar

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

-Repeated removals of Anarcho-monarchism from Template:Anarchism sidebar despite "(disputed)" tag. Understanding the poor state of the article in debate, as well as its disputed status should not exclude it from being included under the template.

Additional issues to be mediated

None

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.
• Disagree. We should disscus on template talk page first. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree per above and pending the outcome of deletion vote. --Aelffin 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 07:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Chairman's note: I've notified the parties, as the requesting party did not do so. Essjay (Talk) 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Oceankat (talk · contribs)
• Lookingheart (talk · contribs)
• Bstone (talk · contribs) I agree to participate in this mediation session.
• Twofeathers (talk · contribs)
• Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org Not a registered user but took part in informal mediation.

Articles involved

• Rainbow Gathering

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-01 national rainbow gatherings

Issues to be mediated

• Five gatherings have been added to the list of gatherings on the Rainbow Gathering article. There is disagreement as to the notability of these gatherings as well as questions concerning verifiability. There is disagreement as to whether these gatherings should be included in the article.

Additional issues to be mediated

(Added By Hawker) In addition there are section added to the entry dealing with these other gatherings that take a disproportionate amount of resources. If we agree that these other alternative gatherings are not National Rainbow Gatherings then this section must also be trimmed down or reworded for consistency.

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.Oceankat 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Bstone 04:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Hawker mailto:Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org --24.196.172.115 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Dante420 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Dante420[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties failed to agree to medaite within the specified time.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Leuko (talk · contribs)
• ParalelUni (talk · contribs)
• Azskeptic (talk · contribs)
• Vtak (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology
• Discussion Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine
• 3rd Opinion: WP:3O

Issues to be mediated

• Validity of government published website under WP:RS for citation.
• Inclusion of material which is uncited

Additional issues to be mediated

• Categorization

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. Leuko 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --Azskeptic 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ----Vtak 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Spike 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Articles involved

• Alpha Phi Alpha
• Sigma Pi Phi
• Alpha Kappa Nu
• Kappa Alpha Psi

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• RfC on Alpha Phi Alpha
• talk discussion of Alpha Phi Alpha members as Pioneers of American Civil Rights Movement
• talk discussion of Oldest African American Publication
• talk disucssion regarding limiting number of proper names in intro section
• Dispute over first black fraternity
• Father of American Civil Rights movement

Issues to be mediated

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

Additional issues to be mediated

• Is the Crisis a black magazine is the issue b/c the NAACP isn't a black organization, but rather a multi-racial organization. It was founded for the advancement of colored people (blacks, native americans, asians, hispanics, and jews). Thus this would make the Crisis was created by the NAACP a multi racial magazine.
• should "pionner" be used or played a key role in that "What is wrong with "played a key role" Pioneers and vanguard are quite misleading. the Niagra movement (which was heavily assisted with whites) and the NAACP (which was heavily founded with the help of whites) were role players but not central like the father of the civil rights movement vernon johns. Vernon Johns is the father of the american civil rights movement, startig it in the 1920's. it ended in 63. thus alpha phi alpha weren't pioneers, but played key roles." also since the civil right key members involved many members of various NPHC groups including Alpha Kappa Alpha (rose parks), Kappa Alpha Psi, and Omega psi Phi.
• Should the pledging section be expanded to pledging and hazing in that hazing is mentioned in the article's beginning
• should "swiftly" be used or later on in terms of fraternity expanision?
• should the paper bag test be expanded upon?
• should there be a section on internal racism and colorism?
• should members who are honorary be noted that they are honorary?
• should ape be used as a symbol of the fraternity being that it isn't listed on the national website as a symbol? in the same way that dog isn't used for omega psi phi as a symbol on it's page on wikipedia?
• should prototype be used in describing alpha's relation to other black greeks? it doesn't utilize a NPOV and there is no proof behind it.
• should this sentence be removed "Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. Sigma was founded as an organization for professionals and college graduates and not as an organization of black college students." Misnomer is more of an attack and "http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/" the official home page lists it as fraternity.
• should vaugn lowery be incldued in the member section being that he is the most famous young alpha phi alpha member to date. vaugn lowery
• Is Alpha Phi Alpha the first inter collegiate black fraternity? When there is factual evidence that Alpha Kappa Nu was founded before them at a college? [1] [2] [3]
• Should the 99th alpha phi alpha convention video be included on external links? [4]

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

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: One of the parties has been blocked indefinitely.

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

Involved parties

• Starcare (talk · contribs)
• ED MD (talk · contribs)
• Striver (talk · contribs)
• Scribner (talk · contribs) Mediation Committee, I recuse myself from this mediation and further edits of the article.--Scribner 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Christopher Parham (talk · contribs)
• Publicola (talk · contribs)

Peripherally involved

• Xasf (talk · contribs) - who suggested mediation in the past.
• Auric04 (talk · contribs) - who is trying to help mediate.
• Kwh (talk · contribs) - although I have not been involved in the disputes, I have been watching them and I believe that formal mediation is necessary.
• Maximilli (talk · contribs) - also trying to help mediate. (I'm far from having been originally involved, but I hope I can help somehow.)

Articles involved

• Shock and awe

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Survey
• Request for Guerrilla Mediation

Issues to be mediated

• Use of sources such as the World Socialist web site, counterpunch.org in Comparison to terrorism section
• Construction of Comparison to terrorism section - is this OR/POV? Are the claims supported by the citations?
• Inclusion of statistics/criticisms of entire Iraq War effort as opposed to those topical to Shock and Awe offensive
  • Whether the comparison to terrorism, held by hundreds of millions if not billions in the Arab world, is a "significant controversy" for the purposes of WP:LEAD.

When does mediation start? if hundreds of millions of arabs believe that shock and awe is terrorism, site references other than op/ed pieces as in the guardian and fringe sources such as World Socialist Webpage. Millions of non-muslims may think that Islam supports terrorism, yet a review of Islam does not have the second paragraph of the lead saying Islam is "compared to terrorism." On the most, any section characterizing responses to the invasion of Iraq should be titled "reaction" since there was reaction in the affirmative (however rare) and there was reaction in the negative (but usually in reference to the legality issu of the entire war and not necessarily to the criticism of shock and awe as a military operation. Pseudotumor 06:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite both parties to wait for the mediation to start and not to carry on the dispute over here. Take care --Xasf 09:35, 9 August 2006 (GMT+3)

Additional issues to be mediated

• Inclusion of video link in External links which is admittedly POV, but contains some footage of Iraq Shock and Awe campaign toward the end
• Inclusion of SourceWatch article link in External links
• Inclusion of image of Nagasaki bomb to illustrate views of Shock and Awe theorists
• Inclusion of Baghdad oil fires satellite image

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, KWH 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, ED MD 10:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) For some odd reason, I was blocked indefinitely, so I am now Pseudotumor 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Somebody was immitating me with the profile EH_MD and an admin also blocked me. Pseudotumor 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, Christopher Parham (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, Starcare 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, Publicola 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, Xasf 23:41, 6 August 2006 (GMT+3)
• Agree, Striver 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, Auric04 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when does mediation start or is this directed by onther person.Pseudotumor 07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when does it start? Pseudotumor 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material unrelated to mediation removed.[5] Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as resolved without the help of MedCom. Best of luck to all of you, Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)
• Ulritz (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

A wide range of articles and talk pages; Articles:

• Franconian German
• Franconian languages
• Dutch people
• Alternative words for Germans
• Low German
• Limburgish language

Talk pages

• User talk:Ulritz
• User talk:Rex Germanus
• User talk:Dbachmann

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Issues to be mediated

• User Ulritz makes a wide range of what I believe are false/POV edits and refuses to debate me and instead chooses to make personal attacks and derogative edit summaries, directed at me.

The guys on Wikipedia:No personal attacks said a mediation might solve things.

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. Rex 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• GetItCorrect1stTime (talk · contribs)
• Plokijuhygtfrdeswaq (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Lynchburg College

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Facts highlighted in this article are done for personal gratification (e.g. Famous Alumni/Former Students" and "Campus Life". These are biased in nature.

• Famous Alumni / Famous Former Students

Ellie Murdoch (aka, Alicia Alighatti) *[1]. Porn star. Deirdre Quinn [2]. Actress.

• Campus and Campus Life

"Located in a suburban setting, Lynchburg College occupies about 200 acres in Lynchburg and has a separate rural research center on about 700 acres, the Claytor Nature Center, located about 40 minutes from campus. Most students live on campus and in nearby college-owned houses. Vernon Street, next to campus, is the most "lively" street, where almost any night students can find a party."

WRONG Famous Alumni / Famous Former Students

• As the record will show, you recently added "Famous Former Students" to the article to try to resolve the fact that Alicia Alighati is not an aluma of the College. You did not make this distinction until recently. She [Alicia Alighatti] did not attend for "several years" she attended for 2 full semesters and an additional fall semester. How do I know this.. because I know the person. The addition of "Famous Former Students" is a ploy to some how include this individual in the context of this article. While she is a part of the history of the College she should be listed in a section entitled: "Former Students In Cinematography" or "Former Students In Film".

Additional issues to be mediated

• WRONG! First of all the heading says "Famous Alumni / Famous Former Students"; one is in fact a graduate of the college and the other attended the school for many years. Open and shut case of solid facts. Lastly, being famous is subjective and as long as the facts hold up, it should not be censured.

• Because an individual has done a PORN or has done a few movies does not make them famous! It should read "Alumni and Former Students in Film". If this remains, additional names of individuals who may be deemed "famous" will be added so they do not feel obmitted from this article.

• Term "lively" street in the context of Vernon Street.

WRONG. As a former student of LC, I can attest to this...

You can just as easily put, "The Lynchburg College Dell is the most lively part of the campus". And as a FORMER student I know this too. Again the fact that the author of this article highlighted a street of the college that is currently home to most of the College's Greek social organizations shows bias and can not be supported by data that constitutes the use of the word "lively".

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.
• Agree

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: One of the parties has not been active on Wikipedia for over a month.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Sensorium (talk · contribs)
• Guerillafilm (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Slither (film)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Talk: Slither (film)

Issues to be mediated

• How the high Rotten Tomatoes rating should be included in the article.

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.

Sensorium 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree.

Guerillafilm 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Both parties are inactive, and one does not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Vjam (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• 201.53.27.33 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1: Disputed claim of breach of WP:NOR; whether a request for me to do offline research is reasonable where I don't think it's required
• Issue 2: Ongoing content dispute, removal and reinsertion of material

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. --Vjam 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

• This Request for mediation confuses me. It does not list "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted", nor does it explain why Vjam insists he has no time to find sources for his claim in a library, yet does have time for a lengthy mediation. As well, it is unclear to me whether Vjam wants mediation solely about a single paragraph which he wishes to insert, and which others feel is original research, or whether there are other areas of mediation he feels are required. Can these issues be clarified? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Vjam is no longer active on Wikipedia.

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]