Involved parties

1. PIO (talk · contribs)
2. JPD (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Australian rules football in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:National_sport#cricket.3F.3F.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:National sport#RfC: Australia's national and most popular sport
• Talk:Australian rules football#POV

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Impossible every kind of agreement with user JPD because he removes sources added by me in articles pertinent Australian rules football considered truly national and most popular sport among Aussie people in Australia.
• User JPD assert cricket is most popular sport in Australia without link sources and refuses validity of sources added by me, Encycloepedia Britannica included: it's absurd!

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• No agreement has been reached on these issues because PIO continues to revert, rather than engage with the ponits/criticisms engaged on talk pages. Other users, including myself, have adapted text to include new sources/valid points when they have been brought to light, but PIO continues to simply revert and respond to discussion with comments that do not acknowledge any of the points raised, whole accusing others of edit warring.
• PIO has also either not bothered to read and understand what I have written, or is lying. I have not claimed that cricket is the most popular sport in Australia, but that it was ranked as the sport with most general interest by one edition of the Sweeney report, and that it is often referred to as the national sport. I am arguing that neither of these is the same as being "the most popular sport", and that no sport should be described that way without qualification. Perhaps this is a problem with regards to English-speaking ability, but I have tried to make this point in many ways, and I am disappoited that PIO has refused to even consider the idea that he has misunderstood me.
• I do not think that any encyclopedia is a appropriate source (PIO has even tried to use Wikipedia as a source in his arguments!), but that is not really the issue here. The problem is that PIO's edits have used the sources to say something they simply do not say.
• PIO's edits to National sport insert arguments pushing the view that one sport should be considered a/the national pasttime because it fits certain criterion. This is a good argument, but it is clearly subjective as it depends on how you interpret "national pasttime" even before we consider the regional sporting differences within Australia, so writing it in this way is not NPOV.
• Even if the sources are relevant, PIO insists on inserting links to google cache pages, rather than the sources themselves. If he were seriously trying to engage with discussion and improve the encyclopedia, he would at least correct this when inserting his (false) claims, instead he simply reverts.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. PIO (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. No objection, but see comments on talk. JPD (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, unsufficient dispute resolution has been attempted in this case. In addition to the RfC, please try third opinion and/or informal mediation before attempting formal mediation. Per comments on talk page, involving more eyes may also help to resolve the issue.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. jdchamp31 (talk · contribs)
2. Squiggleslash (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Template:US mobile phone companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Speaking Directly With User

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Prevent changes being made and come to a decision whether or not Alltell is a Major Network Opearator or a Super Reigonal Network Operator

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Jdchamp31 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Reginmund (talk · contribs)
2. Anakinjmt (talk · contribs)
3. Richard_Rundle (talk · contribs)
4. Gran2 (talk · contribs)
5. Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Move request
• RfC

Issue to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Name of article (issue refactored, previously-included extended comments viewable in the history)

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Reginmund (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. Gran² 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Student7 (talk · contribs)
2. Brando130 (talk · contribs)
3. Nigosh (talk · contribs)
4. Ephebi (talk · contribs)
5. El Greco (talk · contribs)
6. Deor (talk · contribs)
7. 89.210.170.223 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Chios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mytilene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Samothrace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Discussion on article pages and edit summaries
• Discussion for all three articles on Talk:Chios

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• WP:POV
• Additional language nomenclature beyond English to certain Greek Islands

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Robertcoogan (talk · contribs)
2. J Greb (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Changeling (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Changeling_%28Marvel_Comics%29
• Example link 2

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1 The two characters Morph and Changeling are two separate characters. There is no reference to justify merging the two characters at all. Edits made to the page to delete unnecessary information was labeled as vandalism. It was a necessary edit.
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Robertcoogan (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. robertcoogan - Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Pookeo9 (talk · contribs)
2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1
• Example link 2

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Pookeo9 (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, failure to provide any details whatsoever.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Chuck Marean (talk · contribs)
2. Gwernol (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Wikipedia:Blocking policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chuck_Marean#Republican_Party_.28United_States.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chuck_Marean#Blocked_for_point_of_view_pushing
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Unfair.3F

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Blocking because of POV instead of just editing.
• Admins opinion of what is POV being accepted instead of the writer's intent.
• Increasing lengths of block.
• Talk page warnings expressing unproven charges and unexplained.
• Blocking being false advertising since it says "Anybody can edit."
• Admins being hostile to "Anybody can edit."

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Chuck Marean 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree Gwernol 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation, and mediation is not for user conduct disputes or determining policy.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. UBKidding (talk · contribs)
2. RealBigFlipsbrain (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Western New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_New_York

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Is Rochester and its metro area considered part of Western New York?

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. UBKidding (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. Alternatively, you could look into obtaining a third opinion. Either way, I think this matter better suited to less formal dispute resolution at the present time, given the nature of the dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. jdchamp31 (talk · contribs)
2. squiggleslash (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Template:US mobile phone companies (edit | [[Talk:Template:US mobile phone companies|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Template talk:US mobile phone companies
• Constant attempted mediation directly with member.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Whether or not Alltell is in the Major Network Operator category in the template.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Jdchamp31 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk · contribs)
2. PYLrulz (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• I had reported Paul to the vandalism board, however, someone had unbanned him because of some unknown reason. Paul had also tried to get me banned because of the issue, but has resorted to silly and petty insults when it did not happen, and has kept up on doing it.

Examples on what has happened

• Talk page at Wachovia Spectrum
• Incident noticeboard posting
• His posts to me

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Paul has kept on deleting a wrestling section from the Spectrum page, despite the information he keeps on deleting being more than relevant enough to the article.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Whammies Were Here 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Nealparr (talk · contribs)
2. Martinphi (talk · contribs)
3. TimidGuy (talk · contribs)
4. Littleolive oil (talk · contribs)
5. Dlabtot (talk · contribs)
6. Anthon01 (talk · contribs)
7. Kww (talk · contribs)
8. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
9. Antelan (talk · contribs)
10. Rracecarr (talk · contribs)
11. Dreadstar (talk · contribs)
12. Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs)
13. Wndl42 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• What the Bleep Do We Know!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• RfC: Lead section dispute
• RfC Lead section discussion
• Use of Pseudoscience in the lead
• Use of Pseudoscience in the lead 2
• Disputed sentence in the lead
• Lead proposal
• Recent Lead version proposals:[1][2][3] [4]

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• There has been a long running dispute over the neutrality and contents of the Criticism portion of the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the section should be concise summary, details should be presented in the body of the article. Lead should be written simply, per WP:MOS. Mediation requested on Lead section content, e.g. which lead proposal does this best, if any?
• Use of the word "pseudoscience" in the Lead section.
• Amount of details (examples, quotes, etc) in Lead Section.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Many editors do not admit that the film deals with subjects that are scientific. Though the film deals with other subjects as well, much of its notoriety has come from its pseudoscience. They routinely denigrate the scientific evaluations of the movie which are more reliable as criticism than the movie itself.
• Some editors at this article assert ownership and falsely claim consensus: reverting good edits to the article in an attempt to keep things at a status quo that panders to the POV of the movie-makers
• The article was better before many of the current editors arrived on the scene. Was mentioned as a better place to start. This was resisted by the article owners as being against consensus.
• Many of the editors of the article are ignorant of the subjects that the movie is about. They try to make declarations about how the subject of the movie should be treated, but end up displaying their ignorance of the subject matter to such an extent that there is really no chance for a legitimate discussion.
• Many of the editors have ulterior motives and agenda separate from Wikipedia's neutrality clause. This is seen by their continual disruption at pages related to pseudoscience and their advocacy at various pages devoted to the paranormal and fringe topics.
• Fringe has been dismissed by many editors as being irrelevant to the movie.
• Editors have arrived at the article from other articles (such as homeopathy) that are completely irrelevant. These editors have preferentially migrated to one side of the dispute and have bogged down discussion.
• Any attempt to be bold and break-through the gridlock is met with resistance by editors who refuse to allow well-cited scientific criticism of the pseudoscience in the movie to be inserted into the text.
• Note: "Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case. To clarify, all of the unsigned issues above are from User:ScienceApologist

• The controversy is over the lead paragraph of the article. None of the issues raised by SA above are disputed, except to the extent that the lead is concerned riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unaware of any controversy over whether the film deals with "subjects that are scientific". This unfortunate characterization of the debate seems like a distraction here, and is also a problem faced by the editors at the article. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not seen evidence of SA's charges of "ownership", except to the extent that tendentious editing by those who call themselves the "pseudoscience fighters" insist on painting all those who make rational arguments against the pejorative treatment in the "lead" as "pseudoscience pushers". That blanket characterization is false and unfairly stigmatizes both the editors and the discussion. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For every opposing editor that is characterized as "ignorant" above, there are two more who appear to be at or above SA's level of comprehension of the topic, as I think a review of the discussion will illuminate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been frequent Straw Man attacks used to mis-characterize or ridicule the points made in discussion so that valid points get lost in a Smoke Screen. I believe these are intentionally used and they need to stop. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally do not see any "ulterior motives", except perhaps that there do appear to be some voices representing the community in which the controversial "Ramtha" lives, and appear to wish to use the article as a soapbox for airing their anti-cult views. To the extent that they are voicing thier opinions fairly, they have not been all that disruptive. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Straw Man, WP:Fringe has been discussed and has NOT been dismissed by ANYONE. Nor has it been declared "irrelevant". This is a blatant falsehood and a distraction. We are only discussing whether the scientists in the film can be blanket characterized in the lead as "Fringe Scientists" as opposed to less pejorative wording. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are editors who will settle for nothing less than painting the entire work with the "broad brush" of "pseudoscience", and attempts to mitigate the pejoratives in the lead are being tendentiously resisted. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors who have been repeatedly blocked or sanctioned continue to be incivil and make personal attacks when things aren't going their way, one in particular. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Views from middle or "center-left" perspectives are not tolerated if they fail to share the "zeal" of the crusaders. Every so-called "psuedoscience" has some basis in valid science somewhere, as does 'What the Bleep" have some basis in good, rational science, even if it is at the edges of "mainstream".riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the claims SA is making are exceptional claims and require exceptional proof, as this entire process here exposes those opposing the "anti-pseudos" to the risk being "painted" as "pseudoscience POV pushers". Reminds me of McCarthyism.

Sorry to be so verbose, but the laundry list of stigmatizing comments above needed a thorough refutation up front.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than add to this list, I've offered some suggestions on the talk page for an alternate approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Dreadstar † 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Dlabtot (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strongly disagree (see talk). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. olive (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
6. Agree. TimidGuy (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree to mediation (see talk). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree, subject to time limitations; I've never been involved in a mediation case before and don't know how much time will be needed. I'll do what I can to help out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree to mediation.Kww (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Comment: I'm undoing the rejection I put in place a few minutes ago. Try using the talk page of this case to sort out the issues to mediate. If, however, anyone feels the objections (the ones that were moved to the talk page) to the issues to mediate are irreconcilable and just wants to outright disagree, please change to simply "Disagree" (at which point the case will be rejected).

For the Mediation Committee. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject, a fair amount of time has elapsed, there are still parties who are not agreeing to mediation at this time, as well as parties who have yet to give their assent/rejection entirely. In this situation, there is no way mediation can proceed at this time.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. User:Uncle Scrooge, filing party
2. User:Miyokan

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Third opinions of User:Wiki1609 and User:Doopdoop
• Request for third opinions on Wikiproject Russia talk page
• Request for third opinions on Wikiproject USSR talk page
• Request for third opinions on Wikiproject Russian history talk page
• All the three made by User Vassyana.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Reaching a consensus about infobox dates and the international status of Russia after its cession from the Soviet Union (have a country only changed its name or are Russia and Su two different countries).
• Should the international status of Russia as Successor State of the SU be added to the description of Russia in the article or should it not ? Uncle Scrooge (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Any help to stop personnal attacks and calm the atmosphere will be very useful too ;)

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Hypnosadist (talk · contribs)
3. Nescio (talk · contribs)
4. Remember (talk · contribs)
5. Henrik (talk · contribs)
6. Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
7. Randy2063 (talk · contribs) withdrawn by user -- see talk.
8. UBeR (talk · contribs)
9. Blue Tie (talk · contribs)
10. Shibumi2 (talk · contribs)
11. OtterSmith (talk · contribs)
12. Cdogsimmons (talk · contribs)
13. Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)
14. Pri2008 (talk · contribs)
15. Walton One (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Arbcom proceeding
• Request for Comment

Issues to be mediated

Here we have a content dispute directly arising from a misinterpretation of policy. A large number of editors are (in my humble opinion) misinterpreting WP:FRINGE to pretend that a very real dispute over the "waterboarding is torture" claim made in the lead sentence, with several prominent adherents on both sides (see Sept. 2003 comments by Jimbo Wales in WP:WEIGHT), does not exist or has been resolved in favor of "waterboarding is torture." In my opinion, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Several other editors agree. I believe that "waterboarding is torture" is also being used as cover for America bashing by certain editors, with far too much frequency and far too much gusto.

I have already received a warning on my User Talk page for some very mild comments. I propose an unorthodox solution: binding mediation moderated by the entire Arbitration Committee (minus those who recuse themselves), with all Waterboarding editors who participate agreeing to abide by the majority vote of the Mediation Committee.

Prior attempts at dispute resolution have included the recent ArbCom proceeding (in which Arbitrators imposed article probation but steadfastly refused to even remotely approach the content dispute), a Request for Comment (which resulted in an enormous amount of WP:BITE against well-intentioned newbies from Harvard Law), and extensive discussions on the article's Talk page. Since Mediation (but not ArbCom) addresses content issues, and since ArbCom (but not Mediation) addresses conduct issues, I believe that a lot of time has been wasted while a blatant WP:NPOV violation sits there for months, in the first six words of what is undoubtedly one of the most frequently read articles on Wikipedia these days. Neutral Good (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Neutral Good (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. No. The dispute on Waterboarding has been an enormous waste of time, in part because Neutral Good has been obstinate to the point of being disruptive. I'm not interested in participating in this process with him. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. htom (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Omitting members that don't agree with an original mediation request is not the way to get a mediation accepted - All parties (and therfore disputants) must be willing to accept mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Seminarist (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Tried talking.
• Tried third party opinion. User Justin was involved.

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Under the umbrella of "unreliable sources", other party keeps rejecting valid academic sources. His rejections are not supported by any valid reference and represent merely his own opinion.
• Under the umbrella of "not suitable for BLP", other party keeps rejecting references to valid academic criticisms. His rejections are not supported by any valid reference and represent merely his own opinion.
• Other party keeps changing title Traditional Orthodox to "traditional", turning it into negative connotation.
• Other party needs to learn that there are people who do not accept innovations of the J.Z. and in order to make the article NPOV, existence of those people needs to be recognized.
• Other party needs to learn that Traditional Orthodox constitute part of the Church that does not accept the work of J.Z. and do not recognize him and his work as Orthodox. Author of such a heterodox writings is heterodox as well. Fact that J.Z. is still (sadly) member of the Orthodox clergy, does not automatically make his work Orthodox. We have numerous examples in the history of the Church when Orthodox clergy produced heterodox thoughts, ideas, writings, and were consequently rejected by the Church and even anathemized.
• Having said that, in the article, his work must be clearly distinguished from the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Clear statement should be placed stating that his work and thought do NOT represent teachings of the Orthodox Church.
• New section of the article should be added, about Zizioulas' involvement in the Ecumenical Movement, WCC, etc.
• Other party was caught in making false statements (lying – not complying to the WP:HONESTY), and after being exposed to the public shame, he turned to hide under the umbrella of “personal attacks”, accusing me for “incivility”.
• Other party came to the article recently, but instead of making conversation prior to making any changes under the umbrella of "turning the article into NPOV", he expressed butcher’s type of the behavior failing to create any constructive dialogue that could possibly lead to the consensus. While he was constantly saying that he is ready to work towards consensus, he maintained his butchering attitude to the present day. Sadly, his behavior gained sympathies of certain administrators as he employed tactic of constant complaints to them, convincing them that his version of the article and the image description is valid.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• User:Cebactokpatop has been acting as a WP:SPA editing the John Zizioulas page to promote a religious fringe-view, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy', and which has identified himself as representing on wikipedia.
• Cebactokpatop has placed POV accusations on this page that Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan, is 'heterodox' and has added various sarcastic anti-Zizioulas comments to the image of Zizioulas on this page.[5] When I first encountered the article, half of it was filled with his anti-Zizioulas polemic, including accusation that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'.[6] Such assessment violates WP:NPOV.
• Cebactokpatop is insisting on using the expression 'traditional Orthodoxy' on the John Zizioulas page in a contentious manner to mean his own anti-Zizoulas views and the views of those with whom he agrees, thus again violating WP:NPOV. His use of 'traditional Orthodoxy' entails that Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan, holds views which are incompatible with traditional Orthodoxy. This is in violation of WP:NPOV. Informal mediation and myself consider his usage of 'traditional' to violate WP:WEASEL also.
• Cebactokpatop is insisting on the inclusion of links to questionable sources on the John Zizioulas page which do not conform to the requirements of WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP. The source he is most concerned with is a web-page which consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and accuses Zizioulas of being 'deceitful'; it is categorically not an academic source. Informal mediation and myself have agreed such sources should not be included in wikipedia's John Zizioulas article.
• Cebactokpatop has been incivil throughout, making a number of personal attacks, and has made constructive discussion very difficult. He has repeatedly falsely accused me of being a liar and vandal. He has repeatedly tried to remove all constructive edits of mine through repeated reversion, including violations of WP:3RR, which led to page being protected, and his receiving two blocks.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Seminarist (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. hoponpop69 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. ElisaEXPLOSiON (talk · contribs)
3. Xenosagian (talk · contribs)
4. Jparenti (talk · contribs)
5. Dwrayosrfour (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• [7]
• [8]

Issues to be mediated

• Is Flyleaf a Christian rock band, and are the references that confirm either way accurate.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

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, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Xenosagian (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Jparenti (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Lir (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Black Kite (talk · contribs)
3. Calton (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• User:Lir (edit | [[Talk:User:Lir|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• third opinion: User Meco http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=195835502&oldid=195593182
• negotiation: User Calton sent me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lir&diff=196039641&oldid=196038237

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Regardless of whether they feel my User:page content was appropriate, I nevertheless have the same right to a user page as does every other user. They should talk to me about what specifically they object to, before abusing their authority.

Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

Reject. The issues that the filing party has listed are unsuitable for Formal Mediation, which assists the reaching of a compromise in issues regarding content only, rather than conduct. Behavioural issues should be addressed via appropriate, alternative mediums, such as Requests for Comment, third opinion, community input and intervention, and, as a last resort, arbitration. Please see here for further information.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK (contact) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]