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 party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
In February, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard verbally attacked US Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. Should this be included or deleted from the John Howard article?
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page. Please embolden disagreements, but not agreements.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
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.
Debates on the Talk page for this article on the neutrality issue have consisted of the pro-Palestinans engaging in name-calling and refusing to state or acknowledge facts.
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
The pro-Palestinians claim that they were "dispossessed" of the land that became the State of Israel, which never happened, since they were never in possession of the land in the first place.
The fact that Arafat decreed this "holiday" in the 1980s as a way to attack Israel's legitimacy.
One editor insists on making unilateral edits to remove the POV tag without justification, stating flatly that there is no POV in the article despite obvious and systemic advocacy.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, Request filed improperly; not appropriate for mediation.
I'm pretty sure that User:Dkendr is referring to me here as the "unilateral" editor. Frankly, I'm not sure that I wish to enter into mediation with such a blatant and unapologetic propagandist in the first place; perhaps I would consider it if a reasonable and neutral mediation request were written. As it is, Dkendr is simply railing against reality, and I see no particular reason to do anything but revert, block, and ignore. <eleland/talkedits> 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I've blocked Dkendr for making repeated personal attacks on other editors. I have to say, having had a look at his contributions, I think this mediation request has been filed in bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (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.
This request is about the discussionpage of the bates method article.
There are mainly 2 parties involved the skeptics about 3 editors and one advocate me (Seeyou ).
The reason for this Requests for mediation is pure censor. Meaning censor of added information for further discussion by Ronz.. See the links below
Another important reason is censor of the headers of the paragraphs of the discussionpage.. Some paragraphs contain very valuable objective factual information for further improvement and discussion Information for the current editors and future editors. Since the discussionpage is constantly growing a filter tool will be very helpful to filter the most important topics and find real factual information and arguments..
For an example of an improved header see below :
Atyndall and Seeyou concluded a merge header description and a label to the right would be the perfect solution for Seeyou and Ronz and any other editor.
Ronz refused to discuss with Atyndall. His argument lack of time.
From the objective point of view there is really no harm in the labels for certain paragraphs. The question is why does Ronz avoid the discussion. The reason in my opinion is because he has no arguments. His initial statement of non informative has become invalid because of the merge. As long as Ronz can not give a real argument for his removal censor is present.
deletion of reviews of the modern bates method
deletion of labels to filter the most important issues of the article
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject. The issues presented here are not appropriate for formal mediation, in that they are largely complaints over the conduct of an editor. The Mediation Committee does not mediate disputes over conduct issues, but rather attempts to resolve disagreements over the content of articles. Grievances over the conduct of an editor should be directed through more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment.
This is kind of complicated, so instead of writing it only as a bulleted list, I'm just going to type basically an outline of the case first. This case was brought to User:Rushyo and I, both members of the mediation cabal, by User:Alastair Haines. We have been trying to deal with it, but there is just too much animosity towards User:Ilkali by Alastair that things turned sour very quickly and we were unable to control the situation. It degraded into personal attacks against Rushyo and he resigned. I intended to stay on and try to mediate the dispute alone, but I have changed my mind after similar comments have been made about me. I will remain a part of this case, but I want you guys to take over in your official capacity, because I believe I lack the experience to resolve this on my own. Note that there is an RFC pending on Alastair's behavior, you can see it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines
Title/Scope. Does the term God refer to only the specific omnipotent deity worshiped by Jews/Christians/Bahai, or any omnipotent deity worshiped by any theistic religion?
This particular addition by Alastair. Is it too generalized? Are the sources sound? How about the tone?
Does the Jewish perception of God show Him as a male or is He beyond gender? LisaLiel provided several sources showing that we view Him as beyond gender and only use masculine pronouns for simplicity, but are they quality sources or not?
There may be more that I have missed. I would suggest to the mediator who takes this case that he or she read the medcab talk page carefully.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
Conditional disagreement: The way the dispute is expressed above is slanderous of me, and I use the term deliberately and legally.
It is completely unacceptable to refuse to address my request for investigation of Ilkali's behaviour and language, but instead to make counter accusations which, in fact, have no evidence, but arguably express precisely the animosity they claim of me.
If, however, the dispute is rephrased from the NPOV (which is easy) I will accept participation in further discussion.
Ilkali, Ryusho and L'Aquatique have all used language of me that is personally slighting (in Ilkali's case) and much stronger in the case of the others. Alynna has never used such language.
For me, there are two issues.
Removal of language like Ilkali's "not cut out for this", "smite his enemies", and Ryusho and L'Auatique's stronger language, attribution of motives and other allegations (including "passive aggressive" from L'Aquatique).
The issues of the article itself are trivial in comparison, and have been, imo only obscured by attempts to bypass my (mostly) patient reminders of the realities of the shape of the reliable literature, this bypassing usually involving slights or more robust personal attacks.
The sooner all text containing references to editors rather than content is removed, and parties commit to addressing subject and sources rather than other editors, the sooner we can progress. Without this presumption and actual practice of good faith (which is actually simply Wiki policy), the discussion so far is evidence that the real issues will continue to be hopelessly clouded.
Proposals:
All text that addresses editors rather than subject and sources be archived to a section marked as such. (This will also include text in self defense.) Where necessary, sources and arguments addressing the subject can be "refactored" into another section. (It should not even really be necessary to note who provided which source or argument.)
That a volunteer moderator/mediator/chair, committed to taking no side in discussion, assist with helping us all to establish firstly what subject this article addresses, and secondly what is a suitable title for that subject. Additionally, this moderator would impartially uphold the Wiki principle of posts being required to address the subject rather than other editors (generously with the first, strictly with the second).
Other note: I use my real name as an editor. I have no choice but to hold the Wiki community (and ultimately the Foundation) responsible for what I allege is slanderous. This is a serious issue and a little reflection should allow people to realise that I genuinely have no choice in this. I'm in no rush about it, but obviously I can not leave this issue until it is settled.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject due to both "conditional disagreement", and the legal threats made above by Alastair Haines, the latter of which has resulted in his account being blocked until the threats are withdrawn. Should this occur, I would encourage participants to file an article RfC before bringing it back to formal mediation, to have a base-point upon which the more general community consensus can be judged from. This rejection is specifically without prejudice to a new request in the future.
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 party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
A new sub-section 'Criticism' was posted under the 'Reception' section. It is well-written and has a valid point and a valid source and it is an important piece of criticism currently surrounding Call of Duty 4. Hahnchen insists that this is not a big enough issue to mention in the article and refuses to cease reverting the content.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
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.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
Lao Wai began to delete large sections of cited material. His deletions have been reverted by 5 editors, (User:Huon, User:Dlabtot, User:Samuel PepysUser:AdultSwim and myself), despite this, he continues to delete these large sections, selectively cherrypicking the sources to justify his deletions. In my mind, someone who removes so much cited content is a vandal.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject. The issues that the filing party has listed are unsuitable for formal mediation, which assists the reaching of a compromise in issues regarding content only, rather than conduct. Behavioural issues should be addressed via appropriate, alternative mediums, such as requests for comment, third opinion, community input and intervention, and, as a last resort, arbitration. Please see here for further information.
This is kind of complicated, so instead of writing it only as a bulleted list, I'm just going to type basically an outline of the case first. This case was brought to User:Rushyo and I, both members of the mediation cabal, by User:Alastair Haines. We have been trying to deal with it, but there is just too much animosity towards User:Ilkali by Alastair that things turned sour very quickly and we were unable to control the situation. It degraded into personal attacks against Rushyo and he resigned. I intended to stay on and try to mediate the dispute alone, but I have changed my mind after similar comments have been made about me. I will remain a part of this case, but I want you guys to take over in your official capacity, because I believe I lack the experience to resolve this on my own. Note that there is an RFC pending on Alastair's behavior, you can see it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines
Title/Scope. Does the term God refer to only the specific omnipotent deity worshiped by Jews/Christians/Bahai, or any omnipotent deity worshiped by any theistic religion?
This particular addition by Alastair. Is it too generalized? Are the sources sound? How about the tone?
Does the Jewish perception of God show Him as a male or is He beyond gender? LisaLiel provided several sources showing that we view Him as beyond gender and only use masculine pronouns for simplicity, but are they quality sources or not?
There may be more that I have missed. I would suggest to the mediator who takes this case that he or she read the medcab talk page carefully.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
Conditional disagreement: The way the dispute is expressed above is slanderous of me, and I use the term deliberately and legally.
It is completely unacceptable to refuse to address my request for investigation of Ilkali's behaviour and language, but instead to make counter accusations which, in fact, have no evidence, but arguably express precisely the animosity they claim of me.
If, however, the dispute is rephrased from the NPOV (which is easy) I will accept participation in further discussion.
Ilkali, Ryusho and L'Aquatique have all used language of me that is personally slighting (in Ilkali's case) and much stronger in the case of the others. Alynna has never used such language.
For me, there are two issues.
Removal of language like Ilkali's "not cut out for this", "smite his enemies", and Ryusho and L'Auatique's stronger language, attribution of motives and other allegations (including "passive aggressive" from L'Aquatique).
The issues of the article itself are trivial in comparison, and have been, imo only obscured by attempts to bypass my (mostly) patient reminders of the realities of the shape of the reliable literature, this bypassing usually involving slights or more robust personal attacks.
The sooner all text containing references to editors rather than content is removed, and parties commit to addressing subject and sources rather than other editors, the sooner we can progress. Without this presumption and actual practice of good faith (which is actually simply Wiki policy), the discussion so far is evidence that the real issues will continue to be hopelessly clouded.
Proposals:
All text that addresses editors rather than subject and sources be archived to a section marked as such. (This will also include text in self defense.) Where necessary, sources and arguments addressing the subject can be "refactored" into another section. (It should not even really be necessary to note who provided which source or argument.)
That a volunteer moderator/mediator/chair, committed to taking no side in discussion, assist with helping us all to establish firstly what subject this article addresses, and secondly what is a suitable title for that subject. Additionally, this moderator would impartially uphold the Wiki principle of posts being required to address the subject rather than other editors (generously with the first, strictly with the second).
Other note: I use my real name as an editor. I have no choice but to hold the Wiki community (and ultimately the Foundation) responsible for what I allege is slanderous. This is a serious issue and a little reflection should allow people to realise that I genuinely have no choice in this. I'm in no rush about it, but obviously I can not leave this issue until it is settled.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject due to both "conditional disagreement", and the legal threats made above by Alastair Haines, the latter of which has resulted in his account being blocked until the threats are withdrawn. Should this occur, I would encourage participants to file an article RfC before bringing it back to formal mediation, to have a base-point upon which the more general community consensus can be judged from. This rejection is specifically without prejudice to a new request in the future.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject due to the fact that two people have disagreed to mediation and a further six have not noted their acceptance in 8 days. While formal mediation often requires at all parties participate in the mediation, in a case where there is a vast number of parties such as this one, often a bit of leeway is granted between how many parties are listed and how many agree, provided there's a chance at resolution. However, a combined total of 8 is too substantial to apply such an exception to. With no new developments in 6 days, I have reluctantly concluded that the parties aren't ready for mediation at this time.
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.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.
