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.
|
- WP:RFC
[1] multiple requests
- "Should content on the TSSI be changed on grounds that it is (allegedly) spam, advertising, non-neutral, and that sources cited (allegedly) do not fit WP definition of reliable sources?"
- 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.
- Agree.
justice-thunders-condemnation
16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disgree.
Watchdog07 (
talk ·
contribs)
- Agree.
Alan XAX Freeman
20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
MrMacMan
Talk
23:08, 13 May 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 at this stage. Comments as to why have been removed, and are available to be read in the history.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
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.
|
- Very exhaustive and exhausting
talk page argument.
- There is an argument over the map and caption to be used with this article. Some parties wish to replace the long-term map (until a few weeks ago) with another that they claim is more correct, together with a caption asserting one side of a historical argument. Other parties argue that the new map is historically inaccurate and that the previous map with a suitable caption should be used.
- 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.
- Agree. --
Zero
talk
11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Alithien
15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Ian Pitchford
15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. '[Comment removed.] --
Doright
07:52, 15 May 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. The extended comment by Doright regarding why he disagreed has been removed, and can be read in the history.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
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.
|
- Inclusion of inflammatory remarks (Perceived)
- Over Tones of Racism (Perceived)
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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- I Agree. .
Shoessss
talk
- Agree
Ed (
Edgar181)
17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree - No idea what specifically needs 'mediating' and nobody will clarify on the article's talk page
Chesspieceface
16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree --
Douglasfgrego
19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
DDB
19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree in principle. --
nae'
blis
19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
AniMate
21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
C.J. Griffin
23:04, 17 May 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 at this time.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
04:42, 18 May 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.
|
- Talk to the other parties involved (see talk page)
- The limiting or addation of text to note media appeariances this scientist has been in
- POV wording of the article
- The Global Warming articles in general suffer from the same problems by the same editors. These editors qualms that will most likely be raised are not going away.
- 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.
- Agree.
Zeeboid
- Disagree for now. [Comments removed to
talk.] --
Stephan Schulz
05:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree
William M. Connolley
09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected, parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
11:21, 25 May 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 the article should the article be located at "Yoghurt" or "Yogurt"
- Whether those who are attempting to convince people to drop the issue are moving on or are acting as "disgruntled tyrants"
- 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.
- Agree. —
METS501 (
talk)
02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Why am I a party here? My participation has been fairly light. Guess, fine, I agree.
SchmuckyTheCat
02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. [Comments removed, in history].
daniel
folsom
02:55, 26 May 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
03:09, 26 May 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.
|
- As the title of the article suggests, this article is very controversial. The disputes are very old and yet unresolved. The article has been blocked from editing several times.
- A fair representation of the sources
- location/organization of content
- massive POV edits
- whether or not particular sources qualify as
WP:RS on the topic
- whether or not particular sources are in relation to the topic
- 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.
- Agree.
Aminz
06:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Itsmejudith
21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Bless sins
17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Jayjg
(talk)
16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected, All parties did not agree within 7 day timeframe
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
08:12, 27 May 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
Removed phrase for comprehensible English on the origin section of the article, and the refusing on compromise from a
third party's opinion
- The tags issue over the five Göktürk-related articles (qaghans):
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6], with a made
apologize through reading
Template:Unreferenced.
- The
trolls about the
book, writer, location and publisher questioned by
Ghirlandajo (
talk ·
contribs) and me on
Göktürks.
- The
WP:UNDUE about the
NOVA Documentary additions over the controversy section and the subject of
WP:OR on the sources being used questioned by
Ghirlandajo (
talk ·
contribs).
- The
WP:OWN issues over
Xiongnu, Ashina, and Göktürks on me
- Making false statement on the ground of
printed material extracted from İsenbike Togan's book
page 16, and
removal.
- Moving to
disambiguation page, an issue which had been long ago put out on talk by
other editors.
- 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.
- Agree. --
Eiorgiomugini
12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This mediation request was filed using the layout of a
Mediation Cabal case, which used the wrong headers and contained information that is not included, and generally not requested, on an RfM page. I have refactored this request so it follows the correct layout, using the details provided in the initial format. Such an action has led to the removal of some information, which can be viewed in the history.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected, no parties agreed within 7 days
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
08:13, 27 May 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 we should use:
- The Mexican Census Bureau, INEGI, to report religions ascription in Mexico (in this case including Mormons); or
- The LDS own statistics of baptized members and active members.
- or both.
- 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.
- Agree. --
the Dúnadan
01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Hari Seldon
16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Pending --
FateClub
20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Extending, as one participant has not explicitly declined mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee ^
demon
[omg plz]
10:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rejected, no agreement by last party even after time extension.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^
demon
[omg plz]
15:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
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 issue of how to approach the topic has been a bone of contention for over a year.
-
Factory farming is currently protected because of reverting.
- Each editor was recently asked to give their first and second preference regarding the title(s) and how many articles there should be.
[7]
- We tried to hold a straw poll.
[8]
- Discussion of the various issues on
Talk:Factory farming amounts to around 55,000 words in the last few weeks, but we are making no headway.
- requests were made on each user's talk page to identify which issues they thought were the sticking point
- Repeated requests have been made for reliable sources/definitions by the changing editor for reliable sources which have gone unheeded
- The initial merging changes by SlimVirgin were requested numerous times to be held off while discussion took place, editing continued.
- How many articles there should be on this subject (1, 2, or 3), and what the title(s) should be: industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, industrial farming, intensive farming, or factory farming.
- Content of the lead(s), including text and images.
- How and where the issue of crops versus animals is to be handled (different articles, or different sections of one article).
- The use of reliable sources and the issue of NOR: that is, we disagree about which sources count as reliable, and whether we need sources showing that intensive farming, industrial farming, and factory farming are treated as different or the same phenomenon by reliable sources.
- Whether there is any basis for the assertion the terms are equivalent or just subsets e.g. is it OR to be saying that the terms are equivalent based on reading of certain articles
- The main discussion has taken place on
Talk:Factory farming. The amount of posting by one user on the talk page (22,000 words in 115 posts within eight days) has been disruptive according to some editors, and helpful according to others, so the degree of further input from that user may need to be mediated too, if the same level of posting continues.
- The dismissive and authoritarian manner of SlimVirgin in this matter could also be examined if possible (including admissions that they did not bother reading the contributions). As an admin:the complete disregard for intial attempts to discuss the massive changes and then any further changes were reverted without contribution on the discussion page does not seem like that of a collaborative senior wikipedian. Accusations have been made that the user (along with Crum375) have been rather abrasive and overly aggressive towards edits which may not be pro-animal liberation activist views (irrespective of whether they are referenced and according to policy). If neutrality of this editor appears compromised: suggest that editor refrain from editing animal related topics.
- tag team reverting practices between SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Localzuk appear disruptive and designed to force a deadlock on animal rights issues. Accusation of bias has been made by several editors during the disupute. A similar eccentric reading of a CNN article seems the only basis for their actions.
- Is "add content, don't delete" a valid reason to revert changes of another user if those changes have been discussed and are referenced (and appear within wikipedia policy). That seems to preclude changing any content.
- Should reversion be a last resort versus discussion and contribution of additional information be the preference (as it was used in preference to both discussion and constructive addition). It appears the least likely option to avoid conflict and as such should be avoided as much as possible.
- 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.
- Agree.
SlimVirgin
(talk)
00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Crum375
01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Cerejota
03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Localzuk
(talk)
11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Jav43
17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Coroebus
18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree.
Haber
03:14, 29 May 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
06:55, 30 May 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.
|
- NE2 persists on systematically instating redirects into articles and refuses to engage in a consensus to get an invoice from other users to agree on the article's styleage. I find this disruptive, because it is not normally one's nature to put redirects into articles, and what makes matters worse is after I try to lend a hand to help him, since he has a history of controversy from other users he shuns off all users and tries to assert himself that he owns the project. Although the loss of one editor won't matter, if he continues, he needs to realize he'll get blocked.
- NE2 needs to know that trolling, ownership of articles and consensus breaching will not be tolerated around here.
- 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.
- Agree. --
Imdanumber1 (
talk ·
contribs)
00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. --
NE2
23:29, 2 June 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
01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
reply