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.
|
- Explanation on article talk page
[1]
- Thorough discussion
[2]
- Thorough discussion
[3]
- Inclusion of photos in the article with wrong captions. Should or should they not have an explanatory caption where readers would find further information on the location of the photo. (Oil well photo taken in Texas and Swan lake in Austria)
- Replacing older photos with new ones from Wikimedia Commons
- Size and shape of photos and their influence on overall article look
- Should the edits to article regarding Russia be restricted to Russians only
- Is the replacement of photos with new ones that correspond to the article equally well as the previous ones a dynamic article enhancement or a vandalism case
- 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.
Avala
01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Ilya1166
11:25, 12 July 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. 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
05:12, 13 July 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 or not the chinese and north korean estimate of american casualities should be added in the infobox when there's american estimate of chinese and north korean casualities appeared in the infobox
- Whether or not the american estimate of chinese and north korean casualities should be removed in the infobox when there's no chinese and north korean estimate of american casualities appeared in the infobox
- 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.--
Ksyrie(
Talkie talkie)
03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Kfc1864
08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Agree. Disagree, per comments on talk.
Parsecboy
11:24, 18 July 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
02:36, 19 July 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.
|
- Are the published works of Dennis King reliable for pages directly related to Lyndon LaRouche?
- Are the published works of Chip Berlet reliable for pages directly related to Lyndon LaRouche?
- Should Wiki editors who overwhelmingly post positive information about Lyndon LaRouche on Wikipedia be allowed to edit LaRouche-related pages?
- 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.
Cberlet
13:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Mr Keck
12:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
MaplePorter
02:54, 16 July 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, five of the eight parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
22:12, 19 July 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 has been protected and unprotected because of reverting.
- We have called for polls on various topics. e.g.
[4]
- Discussion of the various issues on
Talk:Factory farming amounts to more than 100,000 words in the last three months, 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 that parties refrain from editing, edit only portions, refrain from editing portions, or refrain from contradicting sources
- Previous request, which was rejected by some of the parties, at this same name (deleted per RfM convention)
- Definition of the terms "factory farming," "industrial farming," and "intensive farming"
- Number of articles in the subject area
- Basic content of articles in the subject area
- Valuation of sources
- Relevance of factory farming to BSE
- Lead image for "factory farming" article
- General accusations of incivility, bad faith, bias, etc.
- 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.
Jav43
17:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Localzuk
(talk)
18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Crum375
19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Agrofe
20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Spenny
21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
SlimVirgin
(talk)
(contribs)
22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
Cerejota
01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. --
Coroebus
16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree.
BCST2001
02:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree.
JD Lambert(
T|
C)
00:54, 11 July 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.
- Request from the Mediation Committee: to those who haven't yet noted their agreement or disagreement above, please continue to do so if you wish to while discussion about this case and the current disagreement takes place on the Committee's private
mailing list.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reject. Having discussed this with the Committee on the private mailing list, both collected and received evidence and analysing it against our policies and procedures, we as a Committee have come to the consensus that this mediation request cannot be accepted on the basis that not all the disputants agree to mediation. Our fundamental, core pillar is voluntary mediation (which requires everyone to be part of, because the results of mediation aren't binding but rather must be accepted by all concerned), and having analysed the situation and the evidence presented to the Committee as a whole about whether the situations presented in
points two and three applied, the general consensus have decided to not accept this request for mediation. Although remedial efforts were being made, it has now been two weeks since this request was filed, and two parties not asserting their agreement together with the evidence we had about this dispute and its' parties meant that I have decided to reject this request at this point in time.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
08:41, 22 July 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.
|
- Example link 1
- Example link 2
- 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
08:32, 22 July 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.
|
- Example link 1
- Example link 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Digwuren (
talk •
contribs) 00:59, July 20, 2007
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Please provide the requested details above, which you omitted (see also
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation).
Daniel
01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The filing is incomplete. It was made as a compromise that also involves
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Digwuren, and I've got to balance my time between these two. Sorry for the inconvenience; I hope to complete the filing in a few days; the RFC is currently a priority.
Digwuren
12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Mediation does not work well in parallel with other dispute resolution avenues. Having editors trying to cooperate about content issues whilst they are critically analysing each other's conduct issues at an RfC, generally poisons the good-willed atmosphere that is required for successful mediation. I would suggest you choose between the RfM and RfC for the time being, and if everything hasn't sorted itself out by the end of either, try the other if required. I am pretty confident that you'd have a difficult job getting someone to mediate this case if both avenues of dispute resolution are running simultaneously.
Daniel
08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I am just wondering why my name or even the name of Mikkalai are involved in this "mediation"! I was the admin who blocked Digwuren for tendentious editing especially at the mentioned article. So what is the purpose of this request? Medation between Digwuren and me? How and why? Please close this as per Daniel. --
FayssalF -
Wiki me up®
17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reject, parties listed do not agree to mediation, and per the above discussion regarding RfC/RfM's.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
09:02, 25 July 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.
|
- None yet, user will not cooperate.
- Example link 2
- Muhammad's Ali's ethnic identity.
- Newer sources versus sources which are over 100 years old.
- 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
- Agree.
Azalea pomp
21:51, 25 July 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.
- Request: the initiating party is invited to complete the missing fields: they are essential for this Request for Mediation to be accepted. Assistance has been offered, and will be given as requested. Details on the layout of a Request for Mediation are available
here.
Anthøny
20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
23:57, 25 July 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 category term "genocide" should be included in the main article
- 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.
John Smith's
17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. I do not believe we've exhausted attempts to compromise, and I also believe that if anything,
Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be tried first.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
17:09, 26 July 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,
Anthøny
20:23, 26 July 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.
|
- Example link 1
- Example link 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.
-
Miamitom
17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Agree.
reply
-
Marc Averette
20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) agree
reply
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
- Request: Please provide evidence of prior dispute resolution attempts in the appropriate section above, as an RfM is the final step in content dispute resolution (and there are other stages that most cases must progress through unsuccessfully first before we accept a case).
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 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 two parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
- For the Mediation Committee,
Daniel
06:17, 27 July 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.
|
- Development of the box in general. Most specifically -> Use of debut information, how to list certain awards.
- Unwillingness of parties to discuss until a mutual compromise can be establsihed.
- Issues related to
WP:D and
WP:NC
- Expression of article ownership (
WP:OWN)
- Failure to adhere to
WP:NPA
- 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
Juan Miguel Fangio|
►Chat
04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree. {Comments removed} --
User:B (Wikipedia user)
05:59, 28 July 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, all parties do not agree to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee,
WjB
scribe
06:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
reply