Request by filing party for both parties to take a week-long "cool off" period, made in Talk-page section here, timestamp 00:38, 1 July 2008 2, while RfC took effect
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
POV and Tone: The section Vertigo (DC Comics)#Notable Vertigo Writers, and related sections around it, are written in a fannish, insidery way that assumes much "accepted wisdom" on the part of the reader, and is boosterish and slightly fawning rather than neutral
Unreliable sourcing: In particular, using quotes from a comic-book distributor's catalog in which one writer's non-disinterested editor, whose books the distributor is selling, waxes grandly about that writer
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. All parties have not agreed to mediation within 7 days.
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. All parties have no agreed to mediation and the remaining party has clearly been aware of this request for some time [1] and apparently does not believe mediation is needed [2][3].
Please review one potenial participant was off line for about a month when this decision was made, I am asking for this to be re-opened now they have returned --Nate1481(t/c) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
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 statement in question by John Hick is utterly incorrect and obviously very misleading. Especially in the CS Lewis and Trilemma articles, its presence is irrelevant to the content and its wording is clearly inappropriate.
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.
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 figures for urbanisation in the "population" section are misrepresented. Aboriginal urbanisation is increasing. The editors obviously do not understand that "rural towns" and "major cities" are both urban areas.
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.
Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps they might construe themselves as parties because of their contributions to the talk page record.
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
1. What to do when sole sentence with in-line citation support is deleted from an article with no other in-line citations nor any cited references? How to construe a blank wall?
2. Re-affirming fundamental WP premises as strategic foundation for collaboration?
3. Re-distributing dynamic burdens of proof and persuasion collaboratively?
4. Re-assessing Taxonomy and Nomenclature -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
Issues of Systematic error -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
Issues of Consensus -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
Issues of Informal fallacy -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
Issues of Critical thinking -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
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.
As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion [4], and instead restarted it after consensus was reached). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (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 "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.
1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion [5], and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).[6]
1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
2. What to do when sole sentence with in-line citation support is deleted from an article with no other in-line citations nor any cited references? How to construe a blank wall?
2A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?
2B. Re-affirming fundamental WP premises as strategic foundation for collaboration?
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.
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.
RobJ1981 has been abusive towards me since the last mediation, constantly berating me in my home page, and removing valid sourced info that I give that are not against VG policy. JAF1970 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I give a valid example on his talk page, he deletes it, calling it "nonsense", which is untrue, especially in light of the stuff he's posted on my talk page (as well as my being forced to restore User:Sillygostly's rants on my talk page. JAF1970 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Mediation Committee provides assistance in disputes over the content of articles, rather than complaints regarding the conduct of other editors. This matter is more appropriate for requests for comment, wikiettiquette alerts, or the administrators' incidents noticeboard. I'd encourage you to seek input there regarding the conduct of your fellow editors, should you think it below the standards expected on a collaborative encyclopedia.
The article is protected. I have contacted the protecting administrator, Khoikhoi (talk·contribs), and discussed the preceding dispute/developments, which is now the subject of my request. The Administrator recommended formal mediation (here), on my talk page. Particular characteristics of the case does really not encourage informal mediation.
The dispute is on whether the article should be brought back to its version of approximately a year ago (this is the version now protected) in lieu of the version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52), which has been gradually evolved since that version.
Mentioned users have during this time not taken part in the related editing and/or discussion. They have neither presented any argument in favor of the version they want nor any objection against the gradually developed version except for their firm statement that “there is no consensus”.
This has led to a revert war between myself on the one side and those users on the other side for about a week ending up in the protection.
At the time of the protection the article version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52) was in the process of editing and development through discussions between myself and another user Meowy (talk·contribs). The mentioned discussion is not the subject of the mediaton request at this time.
My wish is that the article is further discussed and developed in its natural course in line with wikipedia policies.
An outline of the dispute (revert war) is provided in my appeal to the protecting Administrator on the "About the Protect" section of talk page of the entry (here) as well as our subsequent correspondence with him/her on the "Hemshin peoples" section of my talk page (here).
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.
Request for Filing Party. The issues to be mediated listed need to be rephrased here. At present, the filing party has provided ″version X should be restored″ as the issue; what is instead required is an explanation of what particular elements of your version is disputed by the other parties in this case. I request the filing party rewrite the issues to be mediated to concisely explain the particulars of the issues which this Committee is requested to mediate. Anthøny01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
