Involved parties

• Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jezhumble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Articles involved

• Devadasi

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC There is discussion in the last heading of the talk page on this matter.
• WP:AN/I I have reverted the following change from the introduction: "Then, upper-caste men can have sexual intercourse with them for a price" was changed to "European colonialists associated this function with prostitution. However, notable scholars and feminist groups have largely debunked this assertion", since this is blatant POV. This sentence removed represents the "Revivalist" point of view, which is described at length in the article. I added the (single) reference given to the references section. This reference in any case cannot be used to justify "notable scholars and feminist groups" since it represents the view of a single person and the page referenced cites only a single source which is itself already referenced in this article. It should be noted that a great deal of modern academic work (referenced in this article) has been done by Indians, including Hindus, who are certainly not under the influence of European colonialists which demonstrate that in modern times "upper-caste men have sexual intercourse with [Devadasis] for a price" Jez Humble 12:31, 15 January 2007 (IST)

Wrong, it includes the findings of the National Commission for Women, which is a feminist group and they are reliable in this context.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other, equally reliable academics cited in the references to this article who dispute this. That is why representing a single point of view in the introductory paragraph counts as POV under wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, the article you cite refers to *historical* discussions of devadasi status. *NOBODY debates the fact that in post-independence India Devadasis are basically prostitutes*, which is what the introductory paragraph correctly states. This is a clearly recorded fact, which is why the governments of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu etc. are working to stamp out this practice. It is clear from your editing history that you are a high-caste south Indian. Hence perhaps you feel ashamed about the statement you keep removing. I am British (although I live in India, pay Indian taxes and my partner is Indian). Depsite feeling ashamed about the activities of British people under colonialism, this does not give me the right to remove references to crimes committed by the British under the colonial regime. Please grow up. If you change this again, I will request mediation. Jez Humble 10:51am, 15 January 2007 (IST).

Please! This diatribe clearly belies an anti-Hindu biases. Indeed, those pathetic "Hindu Animals", what savages they are! See what else those Hindus have been up to.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. Are you accusing the governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and a host of Indian Hindu academics of anti-Hindu bias? Devadasis are Hindus too. Are you accusing them of anti-Hindu bias? This is an encyclopedia of facts. You need to provide evidence of your view, not resort to name-calling. Unless you can provide evidence that in post-independence India it is not the case thet "upper-caste men have sexual intercourse with [Devadasis] for a price" then you should restore the statement. I repeat that *nobody* disputes this, and there are numberous references to this practice by Hindu human rights activists and in contemporary Indian newspapers. I have requested mediation for this article.

<Added by Rumpelstiltskin223> This is how the debate REALLY went down:

Deveadasis as sex workers

I have reverted the following change from the introduction: "Then, upper-caste men can have sexual intercourse with them for a price" was changed to "European colonialists associated this function with prostitution. However, notable scholars and feminist groups have largely debunked this assertion", since this is blatant POV. This sentence removed represents the "Revivalist" point of view, which is described at length in the article. I added the (single) reference given to the references section. This reference in any case cannot be used to justify "notable scholars and feminist groups" since it represents the view of a single person and the page referenced cites only a single source which is itself already referenced in this article. It should be noted that a great deal of modern academic work (referenced in this article) has been done by Indians, including Hindus, who are certainly not under the influence of European colonialists which demonstrate that in modern times "upper-caste men have sexual intercourse with [Devadasis] for a price" Jez Humble 12:31, 15 January 2007 (IST)

Wrong, it includes the findings of the National Commission for Women, which is a feminist group and they are reliable in this context.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other, equally reliable academics cited in the references to this article who dispute this. That is why representing a single point of view in the introductory paragraph counts as POV under wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, the article you cite refers to *historical* discussions of devadasi status. *NOBODY debates the fact that in post-independence India Devadasis are basically prostitutes*, which is what the introductory paragraph correctly states. This is a clearly recorded fact, which is why the governments of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu etc. are working to stamp out this practice. It is clear from your editing history that you are a high-caste south Indian. Hence perhaps you feel ashamed about the statement you keep removing. I am British (although I live in India, pay Indian taxes and my partner is Indian). Depsite feeling ashamed about the activities of British people under colonialism, this does not give me the right to remove references to crimes committed by the British under the colonial regime. Please grow up. If you change this again, I will request mediation. Jez Humble 10:51am, 15 January 2007 (IST).

Please! This diatribe clearly belies an anti-Hindu biases. Indeed, those pathetic "Hindu Animals", what savages they are! See what else those Hindus have been up to.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable. Are you accusing the governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and a host of Indian Hindu academics of anti-Hindu bias? Devadasis are Hindus too. Are you accusing them of anti-Hindu bias? This is an encyclopedia of facts. You need to provide evidence of your view, not resort to name-calling. Unless you can provide evidence that in post-independence India it is not the case thet "upper-caste men have sexual intercourse with [Devadasis] for a price" then you should restore the statement. I repeat that *nobody* disputes this, and there are numberous references to this practice by Hindu human rights activists and in contemporary Indian newspapers. I have requested mediation for this article.

An interesting series of statements. I am wondering if another sock puppet of User:BhaiSaab is up and about.

The Devdasis were never prostitutes. That is pure colonialist and Christian Missionary propaganda. Just because some Macaulyist Indians say otherwise does not make it fact. It can be stated as an assertion, but to present it as fact where a clear dispute exists clearly demonstrates an anti-Hindu prejudice Rumpelstiltskin223 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me the favour of reading what I say. I am saying, as is the article, that CURRENTLY, POST-INDEPENDENCE, Devadasis are bought for sex. This is well documented and uncontroversial, and is what the sentence you keep removing in the introduction states. If you would like to add the words "Currently, post-independence" then this would be an acceptable expansion of that statement. The SEPARATE question of whether HISTORICALLY Devadasis were prostitutes is the subject of the bulk of this article. Viewpoints for and against this view are presented in the article. Your presentation as one of these viewpoints as fact in the introduction of this article directly controvenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for political debate. It is an encyclopedia. You can't just go removing things you don't like because they don't support your political agenda. Your viewpoint is represented and documented thoroughly in the article. However you can't claim as a fact in the introduction that the viewpoint you support is correct and that the others are wrong. Can I suggest for now we remove both controversial statements from the introduction pending mediation? Jez Humble 12:19am, 15 January 2007 (IST). NB the following returned from a five second search of Google: http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/29/stories/2005042912820300.htm http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/19/stories/2006031905890300.htm http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/31/stories/2006123113110500.htm

Please don't lie. Both points of view are adequately represented in the lead of the article. Putting a POV statement like yours is a full-scale violation of WP:LEAD. Please learn some wikipedia rules before trotting off on an anti-Hindu rampage, thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact, none of your sources even mention the words "sex" or "prostitute" so I should report you for misrepresenting sources and violating WP:POINT. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is even more hilarious. You have indeed now made some attempt at restoring balance to the introduction of the article, which is good. Please note that I have not added a single thing to this article - I just restored a deletion you made, which I have cited several sources to support. So you cannot accuse me of any kind of POV. If you have any knowledge of Indian culture you know exactly what the sources in the Hindu are referring to, although clearly it's convenient for you to pretend ignorance. For other readers, here's some more articles for Rumpelstiltskin to accuse of "Anti-Hindu bias": http://www.ashanet.org/library/articles/devadasis.199812.html, http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Chattaraj/index2.html, even though they are both written by Hindus (not that this is of any relevance). Until you are able to quote factual sources that discuss the Devadasi system in *modern India* which claim it has nothing to do with sex work, please refrain from launching ad hominem attacks on me. Firstly they make you look ignorant, and secondly I really couldn't care less because I am able to back up my position with citations and you are not. Jez Humble 1:47pm, 15 January 2007 (IST)

Your entire post above is a violation of the following wikipedia rules:

1. WP:AGF assume good faith with me
2. No Original Research about "having knowledge of Indian Culture" and the like. Cite specific sources and do not add your vaulted opinions
3. WP:NPOV.Many left-wing academics have anti-Hindu biases, even Indian ones. Please read this article exposing deep-seated prejudices against Hindus in american academia, even from Indians. The articles are obviously not written by Hindus but by Indians, and their polemic and hate-attacks on Hindu culture suggest an anti-Hindu bias already. I will do more research on these authors and see what biases they possess if they can be reliably sourced. Remember that Indian does not make one Hindu. To claim that they are Hindus based on their names instead of religious affiliation (of which neither you nor I have knowledge) makes the baseless allegation that Hindus are some sort of ethnicity, which is inherently racist.
4. WP:NPOV again - One-sided partisan views concerning "degraded Hindu culture of Hindu animals" or whatever those leftist anti-Hindus allege have to be qualified by very credible reports from the National Commission of women to the contrary, which has been done, thaa.
5. Intellctual dishonesty, concerning that my NCW citation clearly backs up my edit.Rumpelstiltskin223 08:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:

Please note that no ANI or RfC post has been done by this user so WP:DR is not being followed. I will not agree to this mediation until other Hindu users are involved, to which I have posted notifications on Hinduism notice board. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Is it acceptable to retain the statement "Then, upper-caste men can have sexual intercourse with them for a price" in the introduction?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Should one point of view from the discussion in the article be represented in the opening paragraph, or is this a breach of Wikipedia's NPOV policy?
• Is it "anti-Hindu bias" to present an uncontroversial fact directly related to the matter of the article if it offends some Hindus? Should this result in the removal of the fact?

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.

Jezhumble 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Jezhumble Agree.[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

• Reject: Failed to follow instructions.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 10:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Gndawydiak (talk · contribs)
• Nightstallion (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• San Francisco Mayoral Election, 2007

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• discussion
• Rfc

Issues to be mediated

• Should Nightstallion take away the block so Gndawydiak can edit the article?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Can Gndawydiak make the article title the way he created it?

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.--Gndawydiak 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected. This is not a case for mediation. After quick look at the situation, it appears that Nightstallion is correct, per WP:NC. I also recommend you take a look at WP:OWN, Gndawydiak.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Ilena (talk · contribs)
• Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs)
• Fyslee (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Jance (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Barrett_v._Rosenthal
• Stephen Barrett
• Breast implants

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• User talk:Ilena
• Multiple archived ANI discussions , including Dec 29 and Jan 2

Issues to be mediated

• Neutrality problems on the article.
• Inclusion of links offered by Ilena.
• Inflammatory content added to the article.

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 ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• AgreeJance 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Jance 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree -- Fyslee 09:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected. Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Freedom skies (talk · contribs)
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs)
• JFD (talk · contribs)
• Nat Krause (talk · contribs)
• Kennethtennyson (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• MichaelMaggs (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Zen/Chan

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion
• The article has been blocked before over a similar issue. We have invariably discussed this article with no resolution and there is currently multiple reverts.

Issues to be mediated

• The issue at question is the History and introduction section in regards to the addition of history beyond the traditional tale of Bodhidharma.
• Should the phrase "Huston Smith characterizes Zen as "Buddhism processed through Taoism".^[1]" or any phrase similar to this be added to the article?
• Should the phrase "It must be noted, however, that this traditional tale regarding the origins of Chan/Zen Buddhism is not considered historically accurate as many historians have noted the existence of Zen Buddhism before the purported arrival of Bodhidharma and have suggested that Zen is a unique development of Buddhism influenced by Chinese philosophical thought.[1],[2], [3], [4], ^[2],^{[3] [4]}." or any phrase similar to this be added to the article?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 2
• 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.

1. Agree.Kennethtennyson 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree._{Freedom skies| talk}  04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. --MichaelMaggs 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. --Paul B 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. — goethean ॐ 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Disagree--D-Boy 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Jhall1468 (talk · contribs)
• ArtKoen (talk · contribs)
• 24.229.135.203 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Ball python

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Wikipedia:Third Opinion viewable at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ball_python.

Issues to be mediated

• User 24.229.135.203 has routinely reversed edits which involved removing an external link in accordance with WP:EL guidelines. Jhall1468 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User Jhall1468 has purposefully singled out certain links and deleted them from the listing. He cites RCReptiles.com but if you check out that link you'll notice that it contains solid information that's extremely helpful to persons interested in learning more about ball python. The link contains 30+ ball python related articles. I must also mention that this was debated and resolved a few months back yet Jhall1468 deleted the link several months later. He has also deleted very important information concerning ball python morphs. He considers this "irrelevant" yet he retains a stock photo of a pastel ball python morph on the site. How ironic? Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter as I know you have more important issues to contend with here on Wikipedia. God bless. ArtKoen 20 January 2007

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.

1. Agree. --Jhall1468 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. --ArtKoen 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Parties fail to agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• .V. (talk · contribs)
• Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Ishikawa Minoru (talk · contribs)
• Ireneshusband (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Zionist Occupation Government

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [[5]]
• Extensive discussion on the article's talk page

Issues to be mediated

• Whether the category of "Antisemitic Canard" should be placed on this article or not.

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.

1. Agree. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

Today I added 6 more relevant quotes from reliable sources to Talk:Zionist Occupation Government#More evidence of ZOG as antisemitic canard supporting my position, in addition to ample evidence presented earlier in the article and in Talk:Zionist Occupation Government#Anti-Semetic Canard Cat (sic). I believe that it is beneath my dignity to participate in this case. This is the only statement I will make here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, none of the quotes you've provided mention the word "canard" (let alone similar terms, like "lie", etc.) They're simply quotes from individuals who denounce ZOG. I fail to see how this supports your position of inclusion, but if you really are intent on disagreeing, I hope you'll actually discuss it on the talk page this time. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: Parties fail to agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs)
• logologist (talk · contribs)
• Septentrionalis (talk · contribs)
• Art LaPella (talk · contribs)
• tameeria (talk · contribs)
• SigPig (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• St. Florian's Gate

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Informal discussion and mediation on talk page

Issues to be mediated

• Whether the original title of the article Florian Gate should be reinstated

Additional issues to be mediated

N/A

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. --Poeticbent  talk  14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Art LaPella 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. - tameeria 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree. - Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree.
6. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected: Parties do not all agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Wikidudeman (talk · contribs)
• Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• African American Vernacular English

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [[6]]
• WP:AN/I [[7]]

Issues to be mediated

• Addition of criticism of use of AAVE in American society by numerous famous social and political commentators.

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.

1. Agree. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}
2. Agree. Wikidudeman 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, improperly filed, as it only lists one party to the dispute, then the "Example" user.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• BenBurch (talk · contribs)
• DeanHinnen (talk · contribs)
• Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:AN/I discussion 1|2|3|4 (Not chronological)

• Previous warnings placed on BenBurch's talk page (and routinely deleted by BenBurch): [8] [9]

• RfC by Dino regarding the conduct of BenBurch. This RfC was deleted only because the second user to certify the dispute, Tbeatty, failed to provide proof that he had previously attempted to resolve the dispute; RfC was never decided on its own merits.

• Note that this RfC was first certified by proxy by a banned user, then by a now-blocked puppet of the banned user with no significant edit history whatsoever, and only then (and in response to extensive canvassing) by one more editor who had not actually tried to resolve the dispute. Essentially of course, it was struck out as vexatious following a discussion on the admin noticeboard. Leaving aside Hinnen's conflict of interest, his attempt to portray this as a problem of one editor is a gross misrepresentation of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Whether libelous material attributed to an author named TJ Walker should be included in the Free Republic article.
• Whether inflammatory language such as "purged" should be used in an encyclopedia article about a political discussion talkboard.
• Whether the Free Republic article violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and should be edited so that its tone and content more closely parallels the Democratic Underground article.
• Whether the conduct of certain editors, with regard to sockpuppet investigations and messages on Talk pages related to the Free Republic article, has been abusive and in violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA.
• Whether the conduct of certain editors, with regard to such politically delicate articles as Free Republic, has been a violation of WP:OWN.
• Whether certain editors have been pursuing a political agenda in violation of WP:NPOV, editing articles about conservative political figures and organizations (such as Free Republic) to make them more negative, and articles about liberal political figures and organizations (such as Democratic Underground) to make them more positive.
• Whether the final judgment of an Unblock-en-l committee consisting of three administrators, which has exhaustively reviewed evidence over a ten-day period (including evidence e-mailed directly to them and not made public on the Unblock-en-l list), should be accepted by other editors regarding their sockpuppet accusations against DeanHinnen. Dino 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party response

1. The assertion that the material is libellous may or may not be true.
2. Whether language such as "purged" is inflammatory or not is a subjective judgement.
3. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is decided on a case by case basis, not by pruning the amount of verifiable criticism until it is as small as that in some other article, whether chosen arbitrarily or on the basis of existing off-Wikipedia disputes.
4. Accusations of incivility may be balanced by accusations of legal threats, disruption, conflict of interest and general vexatiousness against other editors - to suggest that problems of civility and policy / guideline violation apply only to one side of this dispute is plainly false.
5. "Whether certain editors have been pursuing a political agenda in violation of WP:NPOV, editing articles about conservative political figures and organizations (such as Free Republic) to make them more negative, and articles about liberal political figures and organizations (such as Democratic Underground) to make them more positive." - the two could just as easily be switched. This is a bipartisan off-Wiki dispute brought to WIkipedia, both sides are involved and both sides exhibit fault.
6. final judgment is not a "committee" judgement, it's three admins who decided to WP:AGF and give Dean Hinnen a chance as the "brother" of a banned user, on the basis that he promised not to be disruptive. Thus far he has been nothing but disruptive, including posting an RfC which he "certified" by proxy on behalf of banned User:BryanFromPalatine and then proceeded to canvass. Dean is treading on ever-thinner ice in this regard.

This is a bipartisan off-Wiki dispute brought to Wikipedia. Dean Hinnen claims to be the legal representative of one of the parties involved. His actions are seen by a number of admins as problematic, and that includes those who were a party to the discussions on the unblock list. I have no doubt that you will not be fooled by the slant that Hinnen puts on the dispute in his summary above, but he does appear to have forgotten to mention the off-Wiki dispute and his conflict of interest, so in fairness they need to be stated. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the three editors mentioned by JzG above, I would like to certify JzG's following comments as accurate: "final judgment is not a "committee" judgement, it's three admins who decided to WP:AGF and give Dean Hinnen a chance as the "brother" of a banned user, on the basis that he promised not to be disruptive." It was not the intention of any of these three editors (as far as I am aware) to pass off the unblocking of DeanHinnen as anything other than this. Specifically, this was not a consensus of "all admins" such as one might claim after discussing the matter on WP:ANI or some such. I am unsure whether or not unblock-en-l should be classed as a committee. Nobody elected or even appointed us. However, to the best of my knowledge (and the list archives are still public), there was no significant dispute about unblocking DeanHinnen at the time. I am expressing no opinions on Hinnen's edits since the unblock, only certifying JzG's quoted statement as an accurate depiction. --Yamla 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

This section is for the other party to add any issues that are not included above. User bullet points to add additional issues. This is not a response to the issues set out above, nor is it an opportunity to make a statment of the party's opinion, describe another user's actions, or state the history of the dispute. Only issues are to be added; as above, commentary on persons, rather than issues, will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Excessive or spurrious commentary will also be removed. (Once again, only committee members may remove text from the RfM page.)

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

This section is for the other party to add any issues that are not included above. User bullet points to add additional issues. This is not a response to the issues set out above, nor is it an opportunity to make a statment of the party's opinion, describe another user's actions, or state the history of the dispute. Only issues are to be added; as above, commentary on persons, rather than issues, will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Excessive or spurrious commentary will also be removed. (Once again, only committee members may remove text from the RfM page.)

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.

• Accept. Dino 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject as I have agreed to not have anything to do with this article for at least two weeks. --BenBurch 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Rejected: Parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 09:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)
• Radiant! (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• WP:MUSIC
• WP:WEB
• WP:BIO
• WP:N

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Failed medcab request.
• Various discussion on the relevant talk pages, the dispute largely does not involve anyone else, so I have not added the tag to the relevant talk pages. If the mediator disagrees, I encourage the expansion to those areas.

Issues to be mediated

• Can one editor force consensus on an issue regarding a long-standing guideline?
• Is blind reversion on a guideline with little or no discussion on the relevant talk page tendentious or disruptive?
• Can consensus be reached without discussion?

Additional issues to be mediated

• None at this time.

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. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: My reason is twofold. First and foremost, I do not see mediation as being a good venue for this. I honestly do not think anything productive would come of it, and I am of the opinion that we'd merely be rehasing arguments that have already been made. This came after reading into the dispute itself, and the failed MedCab request. Secondly, and of equal importance, I do not believe that Mediation is a place where something as mission-critical as policy can be decided/debated on. I suggest a much more public forum, such as a request for comment or on the village pump. In addition to this, I can answer your first and last questions here.

• No, a single editor cannot force consensus, whether they are actually correct or not. They may bring up good points, and users may change their mind on a subject, but they cannot force the whole population to agree with them. Attempting to do so would be bullying, and would not reflect a general consensus.
• And the final question is a bit trickier. In short: it depends. If we have something that has become a long-standing tradition, and doesn't face opposition, then it could said to have consensus, even if there was actually no discussion surrounding it. However, if it is a tricker subject that has some opposition, of course discussion would be required to establish said consensus. Hope this clears things up.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]