Involved parties

• TwoHorned (talk · contribs)
• Hkelkar (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• [[1]]
• [[2]]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• In the pages above, User Hkelkar has been accusing me of antisemitism. I strongly deny it and I asked him to provide proofs, he never did.
• User Hkelkar deleted my edits in the discussion page, saying it was personnal attack. I deny it was such.
• User Hkelkar is accusing me of being "the resurrected ghost of" User:Robert Lindsay. This should be easy to settle for an administrator. Anyway, I consider it to be a personnal attack.

• Request: please delete this RFM. An error was made by one party in the editing process of this RFM. This RFM has been replaced by the RFM "Neocons" below. Sorry. TwoHorned 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2
• Request: please delete this RFM. An error was made by one party in the editing process of this RFM. This RFM has been replaced by the RFM "Neocons" below. Sorry. TwoHorned 13:10, 16 October 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 TwoHorned 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Mistaken request.

For the Mediation Committee, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• TwoHorned (talk · contribs)
• Hkelkar (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• [[3]]
• [[4]]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link

Issues to be mediated

• In the pages above, User Hkelkar has been accusing TwoHorned of antisemitism. TwoHorned strongly denies it and asked the other party to provide proofs.
• One party deleted the other party's edits in the discussion page, saying it was personnal attack.
• One party is accusing the other party of being "the resurrected ghost of" User:Robert Lindsay. This should be easy to settle for an administrator.
• Request: please remove this RFM. I'll try to resolve this by friendly means. Sorry. TwoHorned 13:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2
• Request: please remove this RFM. I'll try to resolve this by friendly means. Sorry. TwoHorned 13:13, 16 October 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. TwoHorned 14:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Request withdrawn.

For the Mediation Committee, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am sorry you don't feel mediation is "friendly". Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Debuskjt

• TheGreenFaerae

Articles involved

• Chloe Sullivan

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• An addition of a reference to chlowe sullivan in other media, as she appears in the video game The Politcal Machien should be added, but Debuskjt is ignoring common sense out of stubborness, and/or a wish to cotnrol the page.
• Whether or not it is obvious that the two characters aqre one and the same. TheGreenFaerae and others feel that since the name recognition is hgih enough, offical statement sayiong they are the same is not nessecerry. Debuskjt and others still instead believe that a name, no matter hwo famous, is not enough to link two characters.

Additional issues to be mediated

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.

TheGreenFaerae 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that mediation is necessary, and stated that I would be willing to compromise on talk if a reliable source for the information was cited. Since TheGreenFaerae is unwilling to address concerns over Wikipedia policy violations, outlined on Talk:Chloe Sullivan, mediation may be the only resolution. I dispute the claim that I am bullying, since I clearly stated that, if verifiable, the information should be added to the Chloe Sullivan article. - Debuskjt 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing from mediation, effectively ending this request. The issue is moot now, since the Chloe Sullivan page no longer reflects the issue outlined to be mediated; these particularly issues were mediated by other editors on Talk:Chloe Sullivan. Remaining possible WP:NPOV issues are being discussed there to gain consensus. - Debuskjt 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: One party is no longer interested in mediation, since most issues were resolved without the help of the Mediation Committee.

For the Mediation Committee, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Mary888 (talk · contribs)
• HawkerTyphoon (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Will Smith

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Talk Page Only

Issues to be mediated

• Should I (Mary888) mention the fansite www.jazzyjefffreshprince.com in the external links as one major fansite about Will Smith?

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 - HawkerTyphoon 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: On two grounds. A) Both parties do not agree to mediation, and B) It's already become an ArbCom case.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Yukichigai (talk · contribs)
• A_Man_In_Black (talk · contribs)
• Grandpafootsoldier (talk · contribs)
• Gamer_Junkie (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Deus Ex mods
• Deus Ex
• UNATCO
• Majestic 12 (Deus Ex)
• VersaLife

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Should an editor be permitted to delete significant amounts of content from a sub-article in the process of a merge without proposing or discussing the matter at length with other editors?
• Does WP:BOLD permit a single editor to engange in a large-scale deletion or reorganization of an article without pausing to discuss these changes when objections are raised by other editors?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Does A_Man_In_Black (talk · contribs) use merging to circumvent the procedure set forth in WP:AfD?

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. -- Y|yukichigai 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. No attempt to discuss this matter with me, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what AFD is for to boot. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. This bickering needs to be nipped in the bud, and we're going to need neutral input as we've so obviously established our inability to compromise on this subject. Hopefully Mediation will not escalate to Arbitration. Gamer Junkie 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. I am getting really tired of these conflicts and pointless "discussions" which lead to no consensus. It is seriously time for some outside input on this. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediate

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Mediation Committee members only.)

Involved parties

• Cberlet (talk · contribs)
• BabyDweezil (talk · contribs)
• Good to be the King (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, Social Therapy, New Alliance Party, International Workers Party

• I am only involved in ongoing editing in the first 2 articles, made minor edits on the 4th, and not invloved at all in the 3rd and 5th. I cannot accept a blanket mediation request, especially if it includes articles I am not editing. Each article has its own specific issues and different editors involved. I will only accept an individual specific request for any I am involved. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Peer Review was requested, but failed to halt dispute: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fred Newman/archive1

• I had requested the Peer Review, and was the only editor who attempted to implement its recommendations. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Informal Mediation was requested and entered into, but failed.

Not an accurate statement. I had requested the Informal Mediation, and Cberlet (as can be clearly seen throughout the Fred Newman Talk page) refused repeated requests to discuss issues related to sources, and instead engaged in repeated personal attacks, for which he was reprimanded by the volunteer mediator. Cberlet then unilaterally declared the mediation "failed," thus forcing the volunteer mediator to withdraw. No demonstration of good faith was shown by Cberlet in that venue, and I require that he acknowledge his refusal to participate in the past and acknowledge his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL in order to accept. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1: What sources of information, especially by critics, meet the crtieria for WP:RS?

This is one of the issues Cberlet refused to discuss in the previous venue, and simply demanded a priori acceptance of his POV and sources without discussion, generally with the rejoinder that other editors were "cult apologists" and their opinions were "nonsense." BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue 2: Since these articles involve living persons and active groups about which harshly critical material has been published, how do we abide by WP:BLP and WP:LIVING, and yet include criticisms?

Absolutely cannot accept this formulation. Either an article abides by WP:BLP and WP:LIVING or it doesn't. There is no guarantee that criticisms be included unless they meet the guidelines. Cberlet is simply asking for agreement that we find some way to work around these clear guidelines to include his POV, and to ask an editor to guarantee in advance the inclusion of a POV is in complete violation of too many guidelines to list. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue 3: Since these articles involve a controversial set of groups and its leaders, with supporters and critics involved in editing, how do we arrive at WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight?

Same issue as Issue 1 above. A good faith demonstration by Cberlet is required. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1: Deletions in which claims of appropriateness are hotly contested.
• Additional issue 2: Claim that material published by Political Research Associates does not constitute actual publishing, but self publishing by User:Cberlet writing as Chip Berlet.

This is entirely innaccurate. Extended and repeated arguments were made about this source per WP:BLP (see: Talk:Fred_Newman#Dennis_Serrette_quote:_recommendation_for_removal.2FUse_of_partisan_sources_issue; Talk:Fred_Newman#Once_again:_Dennis_Serrette_quote:_needs_to_be_removed_as_a_clear_violation_of_BLP) which clearly show User:Cberlet's refusal to discuss the issue per WP:BLP. Thus, Cberlet's "Issue #2" is a misrepresentation of the record, and I would suggest, intentionally disingenous, and thus, a further demonstration of his lack of good faith. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 3: If published material was published several years ago, but is still in print, is it fair to argue that any cites to this material are not acceptable and subject to deletion--even if few other more recent published critical cites exist?

This argument was never made, so thus this Issue is not relevant. No sources were ever disputed solely on their age. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 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. --Cberlet 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. BabyDweezil 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediate

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Mediation Committee members only.)

• Longhair

Articles involved

• User Talk:Scott Davis

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Nil

Issues to be mediated

• The above named user has stopped dealing with me after supposatly "not following your suggestions" is not true.(Found out about this on User Talk:Scott Davis I made a peresnol sandbox,I {just} updated a userpage {and created one in the first place}.

Additional issues to be mediated

Nil

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 -- Longhair\^talk 06:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: {arties do not agree to mediate. Plus, I see no real case here.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Mediation Committee members only.)

Involved parties

• DCNanney (talk · contribs)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs)
• Chairlunchdinner (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• User talk:DCNanney

Issues to be mediated

• User:DCNanney asserts in Markos Moulitsas Zúniga that the Daily Kos weblog focuses on socialist politics.
• User:Guettarda and User:Chairlunchdinner have reverted such edits numerous times, as no source was provided. I (User:Chairlunchdinner) initially reported the edits as vandalism, but the vandalism report was rejected, so I am now attempting to resolve this as a content dispute.

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. —chair lunch dinner™ ^talk 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Failure to agree to mediate after an extensive waiting period.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• avyakt7
• 72.91.4.91
• 195.82.106.244
• Green108
• TalkAbout
• searchin man

Articles involved

• Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:AN/I discussion
• Discuss directly by individuals involved

Issues to be mediated

• The use of organization's own published materials, including teaching aids and scriptures where accurated cited [e.g. dated] and copies provided or publically available. (Please note, permission has been granted for such material to be made available on the internet by the founder of the organization).

Preamble

On one hand, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is a fairly well recognized, India-based organization of 70 years standing with a long term relationship with the United Nations. It has several publicity departments internationally, many websites and produces its own literature. It is establishing relationship with Government departments and education bodies worldwide; and as such, its own published material must be considered a reasonable source of information acording to Wikipedia guidelines cited.

On the other hand, it is recognized by a number of authorities as being a cult, or a new religious movment with cultic behavior. Central to this cultic behavior are the exclusive core beliefs that;

• God incarnates into, or possess, their human founder Lekhraj Kirpalani only and no other religious preceptor, God spoke through him and now continues to speak through a channelling medium at their Indian Headquarters.
• the immanent Destruction of the World and death of 6 Billion which has been predicted since 1936 to have happened from 1976 onwards, to make way for a Golden Age for 900,000 faithful followers only.
• that all time exists within one single 5,000 year period which repeats identically for eternity, e.g. Dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago
• that by following their practise followers will become angels.
• that followers must adopt a strict code of celibacy including no masturbation, vegetarianism, teetotal, not eating out, waking at 4 am every day for meditation and taking class every day, confessing of sins to seniors
• that followers detach from their physical famly and adopt their real "spiritual" family of whom they have found again after many births.
• The group uses terminology from classical yoga and Hinduism with new meanings given in entirely a confusing or misleading fashion.
• Secretiveness over core teachings.

Contention

BK Luis Riveros is a teacher and recruiter for the cult and is working with an IT team of BK followers including user BK Simon Blandford. All other parties are expert in the knowledge and lifestyle of the organization. All the statements and allegations above can be very clearly cited and referenced and are not made lightly. it is understood that membership of said organization shuld not exclude contribuions. Indeed, it should be welcomed in order to provide sources of accurate information otherwise unavailable.

Whereas it is recognized that the organization does some good, it is impossible to separate this good from the core practises, teachings and history. And, indeed the central issue of God's possession/incarnation into Lekhraj Kirpalani, the channelling and psychic mediumship on which the organization depends, and the millenarianist beliefs. No pejorative judgement is being made on those practises and we are have referenced material to support them and all other facts. Indeed, we have requested BK Luis Riveros and BK Simon Blandford co-operate to make the article more complete and provide references to positive aspects of their activities, e.g. membership figures, poverty alleviation/charitable giving.

• The problem we have is that the BKs IT group are trying to whitewash the topic along the lines of their current PR. Central to this is BK Luis Riveros's demand that materials produced by the BKWSU, including teaching aids and scriptures are not permissable. This is unreasonable as I consider these to be non-contentious issue, self-advertised statement of fact and cannot accept this refusal.

Given the contentious nature of any debate that cross the line between what is considered cultism within religion, given the degree of personal attack arising, the aggression and insinuation, given the threats that are being laid down at this time and given that unless this issue of sources is resolved we are obviously going to head into an edit war; I would like to request mediation on the permissibility of these copiously references BKWSU sources. if, for example the topic on Christianity cites "The Bible" or Scientology cites "Dianetics", I see not conflict in citing BKWSU materials.

Additional problem. The antagonist insist on references and citation that have already been given more than once and are not reading either the references on the topic page or the copious references given in the discussion archives.

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. 195.82.106.244

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Failure for all parties to agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Osmium14 (talk · contribs)
• Paul111 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• White_nationalism

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Talk:White_nationalism#A_separate_state_for_whites discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Segregated zone for Whites Only or a Separate Nation. I have provided my evidence that the majority of White Nationalists propose the creation of a new nation for Whites only. Yet Paul has insisted upon his evidence that this is not the case, he states that the White Nationalists want a segregated zone within the USA. We have talked this over for a while, and we have not come to a conclusion.

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. Osmium14 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree.Paul111 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: All parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 12:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]