Involved parties

1. Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs) filing party
2. CenterofGravity (talk · contribs)
3. Likeminas (talk · contribs)
4. Fercho85 (talk · contribs)
5. Lehoiberri (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• Argentina

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• [1].
• [2].

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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: Recently added "genetic study" is misleading and breaks with precedent and etiquette, as these are always added to the Demographics page of the relevant nation. Adding it to the country page is in poor taste and was, in any case, done without consensus.
• Issue 2.
• It is not recently added, the only thing current is the removal of the content.
• There is an extensive ongoing discussion dating back for more than a year regarding the inclusion of the content being discussed.
  
• At least 3 separately conducted studies done on the ethnography of Argentina, conclusively show that census figures are inflated, and article's section does not acknowledge this fact.
• Labeling genetic studies as of bad taste and the current objections to their methodology are a matter of subjective POV that provide no basis of verification.
• Article's section needs to at least include a brief summary that exposes the reader to different pieces of information regarding the demographics of Argentina. Stating that Argentina's White population is 90% while obscuring several studies that cast doubt on that figure does not comply with NPOV.
• Another Issue, similar studies are also available about the White population in the United States and Brazil, but those studies are not located in the country article. Why does Argentina has to be singled out by having a study about its genetics, but the United States and Brazil don't?
• Also, if the average Argentine is 18.1% Indigenous, and you use the old Spanish Casta system and the "Limpieza de sangre", the average Argentine is considered White in the Casta system. Even thought the Casta is not used to defined class, it is still used to defined race in Latin America.
• The census of most countries are based on self-identification.
• The genetic studies were conducted by the scientific community, endorsed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Argentina, and are fully verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenterofGravity (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (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 within seven days, 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. Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree CenterofGravity (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree Likeminas (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree Fercho85 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree Lehoiberri (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject - although all parties agree to the mediation, there have not been previous attempts at serious dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Hfarmer (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Jokestress (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Informal Mediation with the cabal. Which was closed by the mediatior who concluded the dispute boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT They concluded the article is about a term and how the term is used and the history of the term.
• Discussion on the talk page with two third parties who agreed this is about a phenomena.
• A survey of the involevd editors which asked the question term or phenomena to which no one responded.
• Requested comment on the NPOV dispute in which phenomena V term was raised again and said to be unsettled.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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 this article about a term or about a phenomenon (which is described by a term)
• Is this article as written NPOV and how can it be made NPOV?

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 within seven days, 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. Hfarmer (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject - all parties must agree to the medation for it to proceed. In this case, one party has declined so the case is rejected. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. JAF1970 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Jwjkp (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• Major League Baseball 2K9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Explanation of WP:VG
• Telling that no video game is released on a Monday, and that 2K Sports is listing the ship date. WP:VG clearly states release date is listed.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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.

• Leaving the release date as March 3, 2009, as 2K has informed every video game news site.
• Jwjkp needs to be reined in.

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.

• Jwjkp 3RR

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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. JAF1970. JAF1970 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject - Serious attempts at lower levels of dispute resolution must be tried before the Mediation Committee will accept a case. Please try a request for comment or informal mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), filing party
2. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs)
3. Peter Damian (talk · contribs)
4. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs)
5. Kjaer (talk · contribs)
6. Idag (talk · contribs)
7. Snowded (talk · contribs)
8. CABlankenship (talk · contribs)
9. J Readings (talk · contribs)
10. Jomasecu (talk · contribs)
11. SteveWolfer (talk · contribs)
12. Endlessmike 888 (talk · contribs)
13. Ethan a dawe (talk · contribs)
14. Modernist (talk · contribs)
15. Syntacticus (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• RfC; see Talk:Ayn_Rand#Request_for_Comment
• Extensive discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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.

• Multiple issues, including whether the lead ought to identify her as a philosopher, how much detail should be in the legacy section, and to what extent the article should discuss her personality and the history of her collective and split with her closest disciple.

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.

• The overall structure of the article, and potential restructuring and other major revisions. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 within seven days, 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.

Agree

1. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Snowded TALK 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. CABlankenship (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. J Readings (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Idag (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Modernist (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Syntacticus (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endlessmike 888 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

1. --Steve (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject. It is important that all parties are happy to proceed with the mediation for it to be a success. If any party declines the mediation, the committee decline to take the case. This has happened here so the case is rejected.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Zaher1988 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Mzajac (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:Leopard tank#Operators Flags, Discussion on the article talk page.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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. User:Mzajac is insisting to remove the operators flags from the operators list. A dispute on whether it is okay to keep the flags or it is not allowed to keep them [should remove them] took place.

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 within seven days, 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. Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 17:21, 24 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject - For the Mediation Committee to accept a case, there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Simon Dodd (talk · contribs), filing party
2. RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)
3. Ferrylodge (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Talk:Clarence Thomas Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas

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.

• Can a wikipedia editor in good faith ask other editors to prove a negative? Garcia characterizes Justice Thomas as being for "states' rights," citing op/ed pieces hostile to Thomas that describe him as being for such. But "states' rights" is an extremely POV and pejorative term -- and Thomas has never used that term in a published opinion or speech, certainly not to describe his own view of federalism. I appended a sentence to Garcia's claim, noting precisely that: there is no opinion in which Thomas has used that term to Garcia's sentence accusing Thomas of being for states' rights. A revert war ensued, as detailed at the medcab dispute. Garcia insists that adding this qualification violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, demanding I prove a negative by "cit[ing] a reliable source that says Thomas has never endorsed it in an opinion."[3] To my mind, this is wikilawyering (bordering on WP:TE): it ignores WP:IAR and the policy statement of WP:BLP ("We must get the article right"). While all agree it is reasonable that the article note that others have applied this inflammatory label to Thomas' jurisprudence, should the article not observe, for sake of balance and NPOV, that Thomas has never used the term himself?

• There is a very abstract statement, in an undated PBS article, that Thomas is a frequent dissenter. Garcia is fond of it and will not permit its removal. I've already pointed out in the medcab request why this statement is problematic. Since then, user:Ferrylodge has cited statistics from the Harvard Law Review on the talk page that conclusively show that, if the statement was ever correct, it isn't any more. Aha, says Garcia, but that new source only covers one term, and so the general statement should stand. (Of course, if Ferrylodge compiled many years' worth of HLR statistics, demonstrating that the claim was wrong, Garcia would accuse him of WP:OR.) We are left with an extremely generalized, conclusory statement that is supported by a somewhat reliable source, but only in highly conclusory terms. The source has no date on it (which forecloses describing the source as saying "Thomas was, in [year], called a frequent dissenter by PBS"), and cites no evidence. By contrast, Ferrylodge can show, using no less reliable sources, that even if the statement was true when written, it is no longer true. Yet Garcia insists that the general must be preferred over the specific, even when demonstrably false, because (we are to believe) a general statement in an undated thumbnail bio, covering an undefined period of the court, is better evidence than a statistical analysis in the harvard law review covering a particular period of the court. To tell the truth, I suspect Garcia wants the statement included because it better serves his POV to paint Thomas as (to use the word Garcia used for Thomas at medcab) an "extremist." If an article makes a conclusory claim of dubious notability that has a propensity to mislead, and cites a third party source that makes the claim in equally conclusory terms - advancing neither research of its own or a citation of someone else's - can or should that claim be removed, particularly in view of WP:BLP's admonition that "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"?

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.

This is a BLP. WP:BLP applies. The burden is on those who wish to include material in a BLP to prove that it complies with Wikipedia policies. User:RafaelRGarcia ought therefore to allow material to be removed, if there is no consensus that it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, there has been much edit-warring. Someone needs to explain to Garcia that, especially in BLPs, consensus is required to insert rather than to remove material which editors believe is non-compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 2.

There seems to be an intentional effort to violate WP:NPOV in order to offset what is in other Wikipedia articles. User:RafaelRGarcia says: “[N]o one editor is responsible for maintaining the balance of an entire article. And conservatives are happy to keep an article unbalanced - for example, the article on Anthony Kennedy is loaded with conservative vitriol about the justice, and not much in terms of praise. Who keeps THAT in order?”[4] This seems like an implicit admission by Garcia that he is seeking to make the present Wikipedia article about Clarence Thomas unbalanced, in order to offset what he percieves in other Wikipedia articles. This seems very misguided to me. Garcia likewise seems to be admitting that he is including deficient sources: "conservatives with far dimmer credentials have opinion pieces cited all over Wikipedia."[5] Again, if other Wikipedia articles contain crap, that is no justification for including crap here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 3.

Regarding Justice Thomas’s habit of listening rather than asking questions at oral argument, this Wikipedia article presently cites a New York Times book review, written by a professor of sociology at Harvard, basically saying that Thomas has given a dishonest explanation. The book review by the sociology professor relies heavily on personal opinion, and is not from a person familiar with the law or with oral arguments; the book review is therefore a questonable source and unreliable. See WP:RS. The unreliability is further substantiated by its plainly false and malicious comments like this: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia." This is a smear by a person writing outside his field of expertise. Thomas is not a racist, and he has endorsed anti-racist Court decisions enforcing the Equal Protection Clause.[6][7] User:RafaelRGarcia repeatedly defends the sociology professor’s smear by citing Thomas’s decision in a case (Raich) that did not involve the Equal Protection Clause. Citing this unreliable book review in this article is not NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 4.

The section on the sexual harassment allegations is immense, not NPOV, and it violates WP:Summary style. I shortened it, but Garcia reverted here. The section is now back to its incredibly long version, which relies heavily on a book that accuses Thomas of lying under oath, while not relying on any books or articles that take the other view.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (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 within seven days, 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. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. Matter is settled. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • Matter is emphatically not settled. Are you kidding? The very existence of this case refutes the claim. When and where was consensus reached? Simon Dodd (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • Article has now been edited to reflect most of the concerns advanced by myself and Ferrylodge. If Garcia really thinks the matter has settled, presumably he has no objections. If he has objections, clearly the matter is not settled. Thus, if he reverts these edits, he will unmasks his claim that the matter is settled, and I propose that the mediation committee treat that as consent to mediate.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • I have edited the article in concordance with WP policy and the comments in the Medcab by both ourselves and admin Bearian. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my comment above, I take this as a concession that the matter is not settled, and urge the committee to treat this as consent to mediate by Garcia. No consensus or agreement was reached at medcab; I urge the committee to read the page for itself rather than taking either my word for it or the other person's. Simon Dodd (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject. Official mediation can only take place if all parties agree to the process. In this case, one party has declined to participate so the mediation can't take place.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Involved parties

1. IsraelXKV8R (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Rachel.Greenberg (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• Dead Sea scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Requested input of 3rd/outside parties.
• Sent email about return of a new alias of same m.o. from prior adjudicated sock puppetry case ticket # 2007112710018004.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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.

• Continued attempt to insert information critical of an exhibition, not the topic of the article (Dead Sea Scrolls).
• Repeated attempts to cite same source scholar, for same reason, as was previously rejected under adjudicated sock puppetry case ticket # 2007112710018004.

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.

• New suspected sock puppet using same m.o. as previously adjudicated sock puppetry case ticket # 2007112710018004. (Same NYU IP address, same knowledge of subject material, same argumentative style, promoting same scholar, same subversive edits to related topics individuals (Ancient_Qumran:_A_Virtual_Reality_Tour), following same pattern of confirmed sock User_talk:Critical_Reader, etc.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I agree only to mediate the following content-related issue:

Whether the information provided in the section about a controversy over Dead Sea Scrolls exhibitions is relevant (germane, pertinent, etc.) to the topic of the article ("The Dead Sea Scrolls"); whether the sources used are reliable; etc.

(Note: The attacks against me are based on mere unfounded allegations and an old case which does not concern me, and they do not involve content; the individual making these attacks [and requesting mediation] is personally involved in the controversy over the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibitions [see discussion area of article for full details]. His film, used in at least one of the exhibitions, was criticized by the scholar mentioned in the reliable sources used in the article; he now seeks to delete these reliable sources. This is a clear, easily demonstrated case of conflict of interest on his part, and he should not even be involved in editing this section of the article, let alone delete it repeatedly as he has done in violation of the 3 revert rule.)

If we can agree to limit the discussion to the issue as I have specified it, or to define the issue in a manner which we both agree to, then mediation can go forward; otherwise I do not agree.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject. Formal mediation is the last stage in content dispute resolution and earlier methods must be exhausted first. Please try a content RfC and/or informal mediation first.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Poeticbent (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Karasek (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Towns' websites as a source for history again.
2. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#on-line sources vs. off-line sources.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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.

• Basic information about the history of the metropolitan city of Wałbrzych has been derived from the Mayor’s office official internet portal of the city. The online information about the city’s history (available here in the Polish language) is based on the corresponding entry in WAO encyclopedia (www.wao.pl, currently off-line), as stated under the title of that webpage. Meanwhile, user Karasek (talk · contribs) insists on making sweeping historical "corrections" to the history of Walbrzych based only on German off-line sources from the Cold War era (1977, reprinted), to the detriment of the entire article. His disruptive edits and blanket reverts are supported by childlike links with nothing to read (like this). Please see article talk page for earlier examples of aggressive POV pushing by the same user. Karasek is known for his repeated attempts at rewriting the history of Polish cities from the “German” perspective, like Wroclaw for example,[8] always with the same dismal results. The whole affair smacks of geopolitical revisionism, but the edit warring over this notable city article must be stopped.
• Addendum: Make sure to read the comments in talk by Molobo about the connection of sources, brought in by Karasek, with the former Nazis (also here). User Molobo is very well versed in all matters concerning Polish-German relations. He is a staunch defender of WP:NPOV guidelines which is no easy task against the wave of geopolitical irredentism in Wikipedia. I usually trust his internet research. Conversely, claims made by Karasek are based on a 1977 publication by a former employee at Gottfried Herder Institute, Dr Weczerka, eagerly quoted by Silesian Germans who congregate around the League of German Expellees (Bund der Vertriebenen), an organization criticed even in Germany for links with the Nazi party prior to 1982 (see article in English at DW-World.de Deutsche Welle). Further examples provided by Karasek are at least equally questionable, since not a single one of them is supported by an external link for confirmation of alleged controversy, with no peer reviews either.

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.

• Response Karasek (talk · contribs): The information about the early history of the city derived from the Mayor’s office official internet portal of the city conflicts with the information given by six other sources. The main source (Weczerka, Handbuch der historischen Stätten: Schlesien), called a "source from the Cold War era" by user Poeticbent (talk · contribs), was published in 2003 as a revised and expanded second edition. The author is historian and was, until 1995, director of the Herder institute, one of the most important research institutions in Germany active in the field of East-European studies and a member of the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft. The institute is funded by the German government and the federal state of Hesse. The source is part of a series called "Handbuch der historischen Stätten", a German standard work about the history of current or former German regions. All five other sources support the view of Weczerka and refute the information given by the Mayor’s office official internet portal of the city. Among them a dissertation by historian Gregor Thum, a academic Polish- German collaboration between the Herder institute and the Krajowy Osrodek Badan i Dokumentacji Zabyttkow Warszawa sponsored by the German government and the Stiftung für deutsch-polnische Zusammenarbeit/Fundacja Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, and a Polish book published in 1995. The internet portal on the other hand is neither a academic source nor a peer-reviewed publication, doesn't cite any of these sources and seems to be influenced by Communist historiography, a doctrine arguing that the People's Republic of Poland constituted old Polish lands (Recovered Territories). This view is not shared by modern Polish historiography anymore, but strangely these modern Polish sources are rarely used here.
• Addendum: regarding attempts by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and Molobo (talk · contribs), a user with a very impressive history of bans, to discredit a respected historian: the only connection between Weczerka and the Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen is a single book which was published by the Kulturstiftung. The book itself is about his former institute. The goal of the Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen is also historical and cultural research, but only on former German territory. It's also sponsored by the federal government and some federal states, with several representatives of the states and the government in the board of trustees. Karasek (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 within seven days, 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. Poeticbent talk 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Karasek (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject. Formal mediation is the last stage in content dispute resolution. Please try informal mediation and/or a content RfC first.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Subverdor (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Cjim63 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Oom Yung Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Discussion on talk page
• Further discussion on talk page
• WP:RS/N
• RFC

Issues to be mediated

• Is the citation to the Freedom of Mind page in this article reasonable?

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 within seven days, 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. Subverdor (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

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

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Standleylake40 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. 71.70.143.158 (talk · contribs)
3. 76.26.217.8 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• United Football League (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:United Football League
• User talk:71.70.143.158

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 the link to a "fan site blog" appropriate for an article?
• Should the External Link policy be reviewed to allow credible fan or third party news sites?

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 within seven days, 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. Standleylake40 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]