Click 'show' to view an index of all archives
|
Rejected mediation request pages
|
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Categorization of articles with Category:Kurdistan and its sub categories
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.--
Cat
chi?
22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sure, why not.
Khoi
khoi
04:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Bertilvidet
11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected: All parties did not agree within 7 day timeframe.
- For the mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
03:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- After making wild accusations about me personally
here and marking a page I have edited with AfD
here,
User:Skaraoke refused to allow the edits I contributed to a page he created
here. I have clearly established my interest and expertise in this area via past edits;
User:Skaraoke is apparently a new WP user. After a few days of his continued and slanderous attacks, I brought the issue to WP:MEDCAB. After this,
User:Skaraoke continued his slanderous accusations, with strong indications that he introduced sockpuppets onto WP. After other editors pointed this out
here,
User:Skaraoke attacked them on that page, and even on one of
their own talk pages. After a day
User:Skaraoke took the tag off of
School of Education twice, and has now stated that he will not participate in any voluntary mediation process. I understand that this is that, as well; however, I am left without recourse. So my issues are: (1) Personal slander; (2) Edit wars; (3) AfDing a page in retribution for Talk page comments; (4) Attacking other editors, and; (5) Refusal to participate in mediation via the Mediation Cabal. -
Freechild
23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree. -
Freechild
23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree -
Skaraoke
02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected, parties fail to agree to mediation. However, upon looking into it, I feel that both users should take a step back, calm down, and breathe a bit deeper before proceeding.
Civil discussion and a some good old
assumption of good faith could get this problem resolved and nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand.
- For the Mediation Committee ^
demon
[omg plz]
03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
Venki 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Venki
03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mudaliar - many attempts at resolution over 4 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sengunthar
- In article,
Mudaliar which is a title used by many grousps, group Sengunthar is being slandered against while groups like Kondai Katti Vellala are being deleted.
- In articles, Sengunthar , Sengundhar, kaikolar, Kaikolan, the group Sengunthar is being slandered and vandalized by
User:mudaliar and his socks. A check user has revealed that he is using socks for over a period of 4 months. These 4 are exact identical articles and need to be merged.
[1]
- In article,
Devadasi, slandering of Sengunthar is happening. It is being falsely claimed that Sengunthar / Kaikolar are the origin of all devadasis throught India, when infact the name of the group is called Isai Vellala, who had been using Kaikolar name for hiding their origin as Vellala. This editing started only after the revert wars in article
Mudaliar proving that the edits are maliciously motivated.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree
Venki
03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
The Behnam
10:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Reject: All parties did not agree within 7 days.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- the External Links section
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
Scotsmist
02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree - Already mediated
Joeychgo
04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation. In addition, we attempted this previously and got nowhere. I recommend
WP:3O.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Official name of individual is Wilma Blasini. An editor stated Uma as an alias, howeveer the Puerto Rican press has always called her Wilma and not by her supposed Uma alias.
- Aliases for beauty queens such as one stated for Marisol Malaret and Barbara Palacios have never affected the article's titling, therefore same should be applied to this article as well.
- All links should be directed to Wilma Blasini Perez and not empty article Uma Blasini
- Other editors must stop reverting article to blank links until matter is resolved.
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
XLR8TION (
talk ·
contribs)
Reject, parties did not agree within 7 days.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Note: I moved a comment by After Midnight regarding this RfM to the
talk page.
Daniel Bryant
05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Whether requiring citations of actual judicial opinions is appropriate in article as a whole, and specifically in section concerning sex with female captives
- Whether section concerning sex with female captives is adequately sourced, given article's focus on jurisprudence
- What constitutes Islamic jurisprudence (and what doesn't)
- How exactly can the Quran be quoted, and what sort of sources are needed to support an argument?
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
BYT
21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Bless sins
00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. [Commentary removed by Daniel.Bryant; see history]
NN
18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel Bryant
05:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Should any mention of the robbery and attack of Nadine Gordimer on
October 26,
2006, be included on the page?
- If so, should any mention of the race of the thieves be included?
- If so to both of the above, should R.W. Johnson's quote finding "grim irony" in the attack be included
[2]?
None listed.
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
Andyparkerson
01:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- agree.
Doldrums
04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- agree.
lquilter
14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't disagree but don't have time to participate.
DianaW
01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
70.23.199.239 (
talk ·
contribs) disagrees on talk page -
diff (posted by
User:Lquilter)
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel Bryant
05:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
- Request for comment [
[3]
- Should the phrase "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" be re-worded?
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
Wikidudeman
(talk)
22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I agree. My time is somewhat limited, though. And I object to the (threat of) removal of signed comments. --
Stephan Schulz
22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Phonemonkey
22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. The RFC clearly showed a consensus for the existing text per Jayjg's numerous citations. There were none disputing Irving status as discredited. I don't see what the point of this would be.
<<-armon->>
23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
If everyone who commented in the RfC has been added as a party here, then I suugest a speedy re-draft, unless these people actually are disputants.
Mart
inp23
22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
[4] Thanks,
Mart
inp23
22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected. It appears to me that consensus has already been formed via the RFC, however I could be wrong.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
This is a hard copy of a request for mediation which was
rejected by the Mediation Committee. Rejected requests are substituted to these archives of rejected requests, then deleted. Please do not remove this tag or edit this request for any reason. To request mediation of this dispute, please submit a
new request.
|
-
Catch-22 suppression of links and deletion of an entire edit to talk page
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.
-
SqueakBox
19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree
Mangoe
03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within 7 days.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel Bryant
02:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comments by mediator(s):
- SqueakBox is obviously agreeing to mediation (as he filed it), but Mangoe, are you agreeing?
Daniel Bryant
14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes.
Mangoe
14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Mangoe and I have nothing to mediate between the 2 of us. Denny hasnt edited since the 13th, and Denny is the only editor whom I have issues with that I would like to see resolved in mediation. The Mangoe/Crum issue is different,
SqueakBox
20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
reply