Involved parties

• Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
• Akliman (talk · contribs)
• Alan XAX Freeman (talk · contribs)
• M.posner (talk · contribs)
• MrMacMan (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Temporal_single-system_interpretation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pluralism_in_economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marxian_economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [1] multiple requests

Issues to be mediated

• "Should content on the TSSI be changed on grounds that it is (allegedly) spam, advertising, non-neutral, and that sources cited (allegedly) do not fit WP definition of reliable sources?"

Additional issues to be mediated

• The content of the Pluralism_in_economics page.

• The content of the Marxian_economics 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. justice-thunders-condemnation 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Disgree. Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
3. Agree. Alan XAX Freeman 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation at this stage. Comments as to why have been removed, and are available to be read in the history.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Doright (talk · contribs)
• Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)
• Alithien (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• British Mandate of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Very exhaustive and exhausting talk page argument.

Issues to be mediated

• There is an argument over the map and caption to be used with this article. Some parties wish to replace the long-term map (until a few weeks ago) with another that they claim is more correct, together with a caption asserting one side of a historical argument. Other parties argue that the new map is historically inaccurate and that the previous map with a suitable caption should be used.

Additional issues to mediate

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. --Zero^talk 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. Alithien 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. --Ian Pitchford 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Disagree. '[Comment removed.] --Doright 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation. The extended comment by Doright regarding why he disagreed has been removed, and can be read in the history.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• AniMate (talk · contribs)
• Shoessss (talk · contribs)
• Chesspieceface (talk · contribs)
• Simplemines (talk · contribs)
• Dhartung (talk · contribs)
• nae'blis (talk · contribs)
• TexasDawg (talk · contribs)
• JosephASpadaro (talk · contribs)
• Edgar181 (talk · contribs)
• C.J. Griffin (talk · contribs)
• Ddball (talk · contribs)
• 64.26.98.90 (talk · contribs)
• 208.45.160.83 (talk · contribs)
• DouglasFGrego (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Request for Consensus Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
• Request for other administrators to mediate User talk:Shoessss

Issues to be mediated

• Inclusion of inflammatory remarks (Perceived)
• Over Tones of Racism (Perceived)

Additional issues to be mediated

None listed.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. I Agree. .Shoessss ^talk
2. Agree Ed (Edgar181) 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Disagree - No idea what specifically needs 'mediating' and nobody will clarify on the article's talk page Chesspieceface 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree --Douglasfgrego 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Agree. DDB 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. Agree in principle. -- nae'blis 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Agree. AniMate 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Agree. --C.J. Griffin 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation at this time.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Zeeboid (talk · contribs)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
• UBeR (talk · contribs)
• KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs)
• Dean1970 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• John Christy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Talk to the other parties involved (see talk page)

Issues to be mediated

• The limiting or addation of text to note media appeariances this scientist has been in
• POV wording of the article

Additional issues to be mediated

• The Global Warming articles in general suffer from the same problems by the same editors. These editors qualms that will most likely be raised are not going away.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. Zeeboid
2. Disagree for now. [Comments removed to talk.] --Stephan Schulz 05:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Disagree William M. Connolley 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Cultural Freedom (talk · contribs)
• Danielfolsom (talk · contribs)
• GTBacchus (talk · contribs)
• Serge Issakov (talk · contribs)
• Mets501 (talk · contribs)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)
• Mark (talk · contribs)
• Antonrojo (talk · contribs)
• Several others, but these users form the core

Articles involved

• Yoghurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Extensive, extensive debate on the talk pages (Talk:Yoghurt, Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 1, Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 2, and Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 3)

Issues to be mediated

• Whether the article should the article be located at "Yoghurt" or "Yogurt"

Additional issues to be mediated

• Whether those who are attempting to convince people to drop the issue are moving on or are acting as "disgruntled tyrants"

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. —METS501 (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Why am I a party here? My participation has been fairly light. Guess, fine, I agree. SchmuckyTheCat 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Disagree. [Comments removed, in history]. danielfolsom 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 03:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Aminz (talk · contribs)
• Sefringle (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Bless sins (talk · contribs)
• Proabivouac (talk · contribs)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs)
• Humus sapiens (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• As the title of the article suggests, this article is very controversial. The disputes are very old and yet unresolved. The article has been blocked from editing several times.

Issues to be mediated

• A fair representation of the sources
• location/organization of content
• massive POV edits
• whether or not particular sources qualify as WP:RS on the topic
• whether or not particular sources are in relation to the topic

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. Aminz 06:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. Itsmejudith 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. Bless sins 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, All parties did not agree within 7 day timeframe

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs)
• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
• Nlu (talk · contribs)
• Briangotts (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Ashina (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tarim mummies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Göktürks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Xiongnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muhan Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shetu Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Istämi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bilge Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bumin Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Lengthy discussion: Talk:Ashina (clan)
• Lengthy discussion: Talk:Tarim mummies
• Discussions which had been moved to article talk at Talk:Ashina (clan) from User talk:Eiorgiomugini and User talk:Briangotts
• Discussions which had not been moved to article talk: User talk:Nlu and User talk:Ghirlandajo
• Requests for comment requested by Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) on 09:02, 19 May 2007

Issues to be mediated

• The Removed phrase for comprehensible English on the origin section of the article, and the refusing on compromise from a third party's opinion
• The tags issue over the five Göktürk-related articles (qaghans): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], with a made apologize through reading Template:Unreferenced.
• The trolls about the book, writer, location and publisher questioned by Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) and me on Göktürks.
• The WP:UNDUE about the NOVA Documentary additions over the controversy section and the subject of WP:OR on the sources being used questioned by Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs).
• The WP:OWN issues over Xiongnu, Ashina, and Göktürks on me
• Making false statement on the ground of printed material extracted from İsenbike Togan's book page 16, and removal.
• Moving to disambiguation page, an issue which had been long ago put out on talk by other editors.

Additional issues to be mediated

• False statements and accusal regarding other editor on RfC from Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs).
• The unwillingness of solving dispute over article talk from Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) and Briangotts (talk · contribs).
• The soliloquizing profanity and yelling.
• Unmanliness to admit mistakes on here and here from Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. -- Eiorgiomugini 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This mediation request was filed using the layout of a Mediation Cabal case, which used the wrong headers and contained information that is not included, and generally not requested, on an RfM page. I have refactored this request so it follows the correct layout, using the details provided in the initial format. Such an action has led to the removal of some information, which can be viewed in the history.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected, no parties agreed within 7 days

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• FateClub (talk · contribs)
• Dúnadan (talk · contribs)
• Hseldon10 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Extensive discussion with no consensus at Talk:Mexico#Number_of_mormons.
• Opinion of a third party (User:hseldon10), but no consensus was reached.

Issues to be mediated

Whether we should use:

• The Mexican Census Bureau, INEGI, to report religions ascription in Mexico (in this case including Mormons); or
• The LDS own statistics of baptized members and active members.
• or both.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. --the Dúnadan 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. --Hari Seldon 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Pending --FateClub 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Extending, as one participant has not explicitly declined mediation.

For the Mediation Committee ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected, no agreement by last party even after time extension.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Cerejota (talk · contribs)
• Coroebus (talk · contribs)
• Crum375 (talk · contribs)
• FNMF (talk · contribs)
• Haber (talk · contribs)
• Jav43 (talk · contribs)
• Localzuk (talk · contribs)
• NathanLee (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
• WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Factory farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Industrial agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intensive farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intensive farming (animals) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intensive farming (crops) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• The issue of how to approach the topic has been a bone of contention for over a year.
• Factory farming is currently protected because of reverting.
• Each editor was recently asked to give their first and second preference regarding the title(s) and how many articles there should be. [7]
• We tried to hold a straw poll. [8]
• Discussion of the various issues on Talk:Factory farming amounts to around 55,000 words in the last few weeks, but we are making no headway.
• requests were made on each user's talk page to identify which issues they thought were the sticking point
• Repeated requests have been made for reliable sources/definitions by the changing editor for reliable sources which have gone unheeded
• The initial merging changes by SlimVirgin were requested numerous times to be held off while discussion took place, editing continued.

Issues to be mediated

• How many articles there should be on this subject (1, 2, or 3), and what the title(s) should be: industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, industrial farming, intensive farming, or factory farming.
• Content of the lead(s), including text and images.
• How and where the issue of crops versus animals is to be handled (different articles, or different sections of one article).
• The use of reliable sources and the issue of NOR: that is, we disagree about which sources count as reliable, and whether we need sources showing that intensive farming, industrial farming, and factory farming are treated as different or the same phenomenon by reliable sources.
• Whether there is any basis for the assertion the terms are equivalent or just subsets e.g. is it OR to be saying that the terms are equivalent based on reading of certain articles

Additional issues to be mediated

• The main discussion has taken place on Talk:Factory farming. The amount of posting by one user on the talk page (22,000 words in 115 posts within eight days) has been disruptive according to some editors, and helpful according to others, so the degree of further input from that user may need to be mediated too, if the same level of posting continues.
• The dismissive and authoritarian manner of SlimVirgin in this matter could also be examined if possible (including admissions that they did not bother reading the contributions). As an admin:the complete disregard for intial attempts to discuss the massive changes and then any further changes were reverted without contribution on the discussion page does not seem like that of a collaborative senior wikipedian. Accusations have been made that the user (along with Crum375) have been rather abrasive and overly aggressive towards edits which may not be pro-animal liberation activist views (irrespective of whether they are referenced and according to policy). If neutrality of this editor appears compromised: suggest that editor refrain from editing animal related topics.
• tag team reverting practices between SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Localzuk appear disruptive and designed to force a deadlock on animal rights issues. Accusation of bias has been made by several editors during the disupute. A similar eccentric reading of a CNN article seems the only basis for their actions.
• Is "add content, don't delete" a valid reason to revert changes of another user if those changes have been discussed and are referenced (and appear within wikipedia policy). That seems to preclude changing any content.
• Should reversion be a last resort versus discussion and contribution of additional information be the preference (as it was used in preference to both discussion and constructive addition). It appears the least likely option to avoid conflict and as such should be avoided as much as possible.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. Crum375 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. Cerejota 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree. Localzuk^(talk) 11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Agree. Jav43 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. Agree. --Coroebus 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Disagree. Haber 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs)
• NE2 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• 1 (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• talk page
• my talk page
• project page that is a part of the article's scope

Issues to be mediated

• NE2 persists on systematically instating redirects into articles and refuses to engage in a consensus to get an invoice from other users to agree on the article's styleage. I find this disruptive, because it is not normally one's nature to put redirects into articles, and what makes matters worse is after I try to lend a hand to help him, since he has a history of controversy from other users he shuns off all users and tries to assert himself that he owns the project. Although the loss of one editor won't matter, if he continues, he needs to realize he'll get blocked.

Additional issues to be mediated

• NE2 needs to know that trolling, ownership of articles and consensus breaching will not be tolerated around here.

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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Disagree. --NE2 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[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, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]