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.
• Tried informal mediation that failed. [1]

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.
• Latest development is that other party plans to reject formal mediation, and instead of that, try to "eliminate" myself via other means, like "comment page"... I am not sure what Wiki offers in order to resolve situation in which dishonest users reject requests for mediation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebactokpatop (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 April 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. Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Seminarist (talk) 00:42, 18 April 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) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Rapido (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Xasha (talk · contribs)
3. Illythr (talk · contribs)
4. Mikkalai (talk · contribs)
5. Marc KJH (talk · contribs)
6. Qu90 (talk · contribs)
7. Erdeniss (talk · contribs)
8. 90 1 AQ (talk · contribs)
9. Dc76 (talk · contribs)
10. Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs)
11. TSO1D (talk · contribs)
12. Biruitorul (talk · contribs)

    Note, all parties have been notified. Anthøny 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

• Bender, Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tighina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:Bender, Moldova
• Talk:Bender, Moldova#Requested move

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.

• Name of article
• Names that should be used in 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.

• 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. Rapido (talk) 10:59, 12 April 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, Anthøny 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Drachenfyre (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Jza84 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Template:Infobox Country styled (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Country styled|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Template talk:Infobox Country#Wales country specific infobox, Down to ...
• Template talk:Infobox Country#Stop attacking Wikid77 for the Wales border changes

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.

1. Allow for the discussion for the inclusion for infobox borders and title headers to continue (it is currently up for deletion)
2. To allow for the examples (Wales, Kingdom of Gwynedd, Kingdom of Powys, Principality of Wales) to remain in force once consensus reached on Template talk:Infobox Country

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.

1. Desire for all conversation to be directed at one source, with a broad enough base for concensus

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. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:45, 14 April 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, Anthøny 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Proxy User (talk · contribs), filing party
2. FCYTravis (talk · contribs)
3. War (talk · contribs)
4. Cleo123 (talk · contribs)
5. Kelly \ (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• This issue has been discussed by Prox User on the Dawn Wells Discussion page, however none of the parties listed above have accepted any active discussion, rather choosing to engage in bad faith revert wars. FCYTravis, an Admin, has reverted the content several times without such courtesy as a comment either in the Dawn Wells Discussion, or my Talk Page. Removal of content without discussion and consensus is improper. Removal of content that some find objectionable for personal reasons, yet is still factual relevant content is improper.

Issues to be mediated

Is the section titled Marijuana Incidents relevent and valid content that should be included. The section is as follows:

In 1998, fellow Islander Bob Denver was arrested for having a parcel of marijuana delivered to his home. He originally said that the parcel had come from Dawn Wells, but later refused to name her in court, and testified that "some crazy fan must have sent it".^[1]

Wells was arrested on October 18 2007, after a Teton County sheriff's deputy pulled her over after observing her swerve across the fog lines and center lines of State Highway 33 and repeatedly accelerating and slowing down. The officer noted the odor of "burning marijuana", and a search of her vehicle produced several partially consumed marijuana cigarettes and several containers of marijuana. Wells was taken into custody after failing a field sobriety test.^[2] According to the Associated Press, she was sentenced on February 29 2008 to five days in jail, fined $410.50, and placed on six months' probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.^[3]

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. Proxy User (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. FCYTravis (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. Kelly ^hi! 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree. Cleo123 (talk) 04:23, 29 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, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. syberwolff (talk · contribs), filing party
2. cburnett (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Third Opinion

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.

• I and Cburnett disagree over validation of the article. He insists on using manufacturer titled categories, but that is hard/unintelligible because A. the manufacturer doesn't always list their own category for each camera they release, B. the manufacturer doesn't always stay consistent, and C. the categories were setup to be universal throughout several photography time line templates to make them easier to understand. These terms were not just made up, they are the accepted terms throughout the photographic community whether the camera manufacturers recognize them or not.

Additional issues to be mediated

I've been discussing some of the issues involved in this dispute on the template's talk page and elsewhere.

I think that this dispute raises some issues of general and broader importance:

1. To what extent is it necessary for a template, designed largely to be a navigational aid rather than a source of encyclopedic content, to contain references explaining its choice of terminology?
2. How should things be categorized when there's no universally agreed-on, authoritative set of labels for the categories... and yet there are clear distinctions between those categories, such that knowledgeable people would consistently group certain items together?
3. Should marketing literature be considered authoritative references for product descriptions, in the absence of other agreed-on terminology? For example, if Nikon calls its camera a "compact professional" camera, do we have to do it too... just because others call it "prosumer" or "advanced enthusiast" or "high-end crop sensor", and there's no consensus?

Here are my own thoughts on these questions:

1. I don't believe it is necessary or desirable for a navigational template to feature references, since its function is not to be a verifiable source of information, but merely to point users conveniently towards articles that contain that information. Such templates should generally describe the items that they categorize in terms similar to those used in the individual articles.
2. This one is hard to figure out. I sympathize with User:Cburnett's frustration at the shifting, squabbling set of category labels. However, I believe that his solution of hewing tightly to the manufacturer's descriptions is very sub-optimal.
   For example I believe that most photographers would consider it "reasonable" to call the Nikon D80, the Canon EOS 40D, and the Pentax K10D prosumer cameras. Or to call them advanced enthusiast cameras. Or to call them mid-range crop-sensor cameras. These descriptions would be informed by the fact that these cameras have similar feature sets, similar target markets, similar prices, and are marketed and reviewed using similar terms. So, I think any of these terms would be useful and informative, if used consistently.
3. What I think (hope?) many of us can also agree on is that things are made more confusing by labeling each of these cameras with a different category name, simply because their manufacturers call them different things for marketing reasons. It may in some sense be more "verifiable" to call the Nikon D80 an "enthusiast" camera and to call the Canon EOS 40D a "prosumer" camera (as is currently the case). But I believe these disparate labels do no favors to readers, who likely wish to compare similar cameras, and do not enhance anyone's understanding of the cameras' features.

I expect that some of these questions have been discussed and resolved with respect to other types of products (computers? cars?). Any thoughts, pointers to relevant discussion? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:46, 20 March 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. ^SyBer_WoLff 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Cburnett (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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, Wizardman 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)
3. CormHamster (talk · contribs)
4. thestick (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• talk page discussion has not been able to reach a consensus
• occausional 3rd parties have come in to comment

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.

• Should Category:Anti-Islam sentiment be included?
• Should Islamophobia be linked in the "see also" 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.

• 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. Yahel Guhan 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. CormHamster (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. thestick (talk) 22:00, 30 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, not all parties agreed to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Micahmedia (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Mvemkr (talk · contribs)
3. Spacefarer (talk · contribs)
4. Gilbertine_goldmark (talk · contribs)
5. Pax_Arcane (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example [2]
• Wikipedia:Third opinion

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.

• This article appears to have a history of POV that whitewashes the image of the organization that the article is about and removal of edits in spite of being validly sourced. Further progress seems impeded without mediation.
• There seems to be a group of several editors who are editing for superfluous reasons and stating irrelevant WP guidelines to cover themselves.

It's my understanding that NPOV may include both sides of an issue where opinion is involved. Is this not the case?

As this continues, it seems that users User:Mvemkr, User:Triplejumper, and User:Gilbertine goldmark want to immediately delete any section they disagree with and cite irrelevant WP rules. For example today a perfectly NPOV, factual, and significant section was removed from the lede as "inflamatory". It may not have been flattering, but it was information that the article did not present in the lede, which was in fact giving the lede a less than neutral point of view. There may have been an issue with the admittedly awkward sentence structure, but instead of correcting it for grammar, it was removed in whole without any (previously requested) discussion.

The repeated removal of information purely because it is not flattering makes me suspect a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahmedia (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 March 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. Micahmedia (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. --Pax Arcane 04:49, 27 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 either trying an article request for comments, 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) 06:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Elliandr (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Percy Snoodle (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Variations_of_Settlers_of_Catan
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive

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.

• User repeatedly deletes large sections of content, citing WP:EL. However, content links do not break the rules. On the contrary, content just as much relevant and legal as any other reference used. I attempted to cite legal reasons on the talk page. I attempted to discuss the issue on talk pages but was ignored. Compromise is desired. I attempted to compromise, removing the external links, but then the user simply deletes the same content as unreferenced. So either I can't reference, or I can't have the content included.
• Page was originally created because on Settlers of Catan talk page I learned that despite the objections of many users, the same content was removed for the same incorrect reasons and history files were deleted there. On that page, user referred to the information page as a Ghetto article and attempted to have the entire article Variations of Settlers of Catan deleted, despite the fact that there was no reason to delete it.
• User appears to be of the strong opinion that none of this content should exist on wikipedia in any way shape or form. I believe firmly that wikipedia is not for opinions, but for referenced facts. One way or another, mediation is needed to settle this.

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. Elliandr (talk) 00:29, 3 April 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) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Ramdrake (talk · contribs)
2. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
3. Nick Connolly (talk · contribs)
4. Legalleft (talk · contribs)
5. Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)
6. Jim62sch (talk · contribs)
7. Wobble (talk · contribs)
8. Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)

• Note - I'm not an editor of this article. I filed this request after the editors involved had agreed that mediation was needed on the talkpage (link) and I was contacted by several of the parties and asked to mediate this myself. I don't think I'm experienced enough to do this, so I recommended they do this formally with an experienced mediator. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

• Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Request for comment that had a clear consensus that the article was in breach of the NPOV policy
• Inconclusive talk page discussions

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.

• How can the article be brought into line with the NPOV policy?

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.

• What is the best and most appropriate way to describe the work of the holders of the hereditarian viewpoint (such as Lynn, Rushton, Murray, etc.)? Their theories are widely disputed and debunked, but seem to fall short of something we can definitely call pseudoscience.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What are the criteria for defining a point of view as "fringe" in the scientific/academic community? There is some dispute regarding what constitutes a scientifically fringe viewpoint, even though this viewpoint may be notable by it's prominence in the media. Alun (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How to manage the problem that public opinion (e.g. reporters and editors) and expert opinion are divergent (re: Synderman and Rothman, 1987, 1988) with particular attention to the problem of non-expertice among editors? --Legalleft (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the existence of several opinions from expert groups (APA statement, AAA statement, Snyderman and Rothman survey, the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial), all of which claim to represent the opinion of experts and some of which are contradictory, what is the proper way to define mainstream opinion from minority opinion in this case?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:19, 2 April 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Ramdrake (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Alun (talk)
8. Agree Legalleft (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 5 April 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.

On hold pending response to query on talk page.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject per commentary on talk page regarding absence of one of the major parties. If the user re-enters the discussion, and will agree to mediation, feel free to refile; should he/she continue to be withdrawn from the dispute, comments on the talk page indicate that the dispute may be resolvable without formal mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Qqqqqq (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Bolly Nickers‎ (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vehicle registration plates of Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vehicle registration plates of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vehicle registration plates of New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vehicle registration plates of Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• User talk:Bolly Nickers‎ - Asked user to please wait before unilaterally creating subarticle pages.
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-06 Vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state)

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.

• User:Bolly Nickers‎ is unilaterally creating new articles for sections of state articles in the category Vehicle registration plates of the United States for special types of license plates and historical license plates, so far for these four states. I have requested that the user wait until consensus is achieved, but the user has not responded to my requests and has proceeded ahead.

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.

A 'checkuser' on Campbell Showing as his edits strongly suggest he's a sock puppet of Bolly Nickers.  Channel ®    10:15, 7 April 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. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:38, 6 April 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 Mediation Cabal case was filed yesterday. Informal mediation via this venue should be attempted before a formal mediation case will be accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]