Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/07

< Wikipedia:Requests for mediation | Rejected
Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages


Status of religious freedom in Canada

edit

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

edit

Article talk pages

edit
talk page diff

User talk pages

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit
Attempted discussions on the dispute with new user without success.

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • DRCarroll did not like the way the article was originally written. He seeks to delete major sections and add what he sees as the other side of the story. Deet feels many of the facts deleted (e.g., Corren) are important in any discussion of religious freedom in Canada and that DRCarroll's edits are generally not aligned with the topic name itself. This has resulted in a major revert war.
  • I discovered this article by chance and found it be a serious brach of the both the NPOV and verfiablity of the sources listed. I systematically went through all the sources listed in the article and found them in most cases to be either biased from a strictly christian or faith based 'sources' or , unverifiable without what User:Deetdeet quaintly reffered to as a 'trip to the library' to verify them. I have put serious work into the article and have asked others, inluding people perusing the Gay Rights in Canada page to assist me. As well as Deetdeet an offer to work together, i have not received a response from him. However DeetDeet has begun this revert war without listing any other serious rebuttal,or research as to why it should be reverted. And this mediation i believeis just another ploy for him to insert his biases again without providing NPOV sources or verfiable sources.

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hawash

edit

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • User:IronDuke will not allow User:Anomicene to edit the page, because of a previous inter-user conflict
  • A blog posting is being used to source a statement, in possible violation of WP:RS
  • An opinion editorialist is being given undue weight in the article

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • The article may be POV, but one editor will not allow others to edit


Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-fascism

edit

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit


Issues to be mediated

edit
  • A dispute concerning the presence or absence of neo-fascism in the United States. User:Intangible feels that some published material should simply be deleted.

Additional issues to be mediated

edit

None

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem

edit

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

None. The articles are or have been placed on AfD, and the discussions there and the changes to talk pages are the open discussion that have been had (including some administrators).

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Issue 1: Are any of the users involved in sockpuppeting?
  • Issue 2: Should the creation of these articles, the defense thereof, the creation of external websites to support your articles, and the general behaviour and actions of any of the users involved be sanctioned?
  • Issue 3: Is the coordinated effort of a group of people to push their view and stack votes acceptable?
  • Issue 4: How can a case of "multiple articles by multiple users" vandalism best be handled? What steps should the other users have taken to resolve this quicker?
  • Issue 5: In what way have the parties involved (note: some of the people are mere witnesses and have in my opinion not done anything that has to be mediated) broken some of the rules by being incivil or otherwise?
  • Issue 6: If an article has a name that could point to a subject that one day could have an article of its own, but is as it is created and modified only nonsense (i.e. completely unrelated to the existing subject and only intended as vandalism / joke), can it then be deleted? The same question for a project.
  • Issue 7: Can an article that follows Wikipedia guidelines be considered "vandalism"?
  • Issue 8: Does such an accusation (see Issue 7) even matter since an article is constantly evolving and may or may not contain the same information as it did when it was considered vandalized?
  • Issue 9: If an article survives Speedy Deletion as well as AfD, what are the chances it will not survive Mediation or Arbitration?
  • Issue 10: What are the guidelines for assuming that an article has been created as "vandalism" or "a joke"?
  • Issue 11: As long as an article follows Wikipedia guidelines, does it matter whether or not an article has been created/edited "in good faith"?
  • Issue 12: To what extent has personal user history played a role in the biases of both parties? Note that pro-Gotem forces consist mostly of users located in the US, while anti-Gotem forces consist mainly of European users.

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • Additional issue 1: Should the editors of nonsense page be subject of mediation or should they be banned directly? The fact that it seems to be Europeans who act against the articles, is because the Europeans just happen to know, that a town called Eiland in Belgium simply does not exist and has never existed (neither in The Netherlands, neither in the U.S., neither in the UK).
  • Additional issue 2: How would moderators on this Wikikpedia react if a nonsense article about a non-existent town in the U.S. was made?

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Robert Nash

edit

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:


Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Issue 1: Should the information on allegations against Jay Robert Nash made by Theresa Carpinelli, and the subsequent retraction and apology for the allegations, be in the Nash article?
  • Issue 2: If the allegations and retraction are not included, should any information about questions against Nash be in the article?
  • Issue 3: Should a participant to the events described in the article, Theresa Carpinelli (who edits as Polycarp7 (talk · contribs)), be allowed to edit or influence the article?
  • Issue 4: Are POV edits being made to the article?
  • Issue 5: Are unsourced and unreferenced edits allowed in the article?
  • Issue 6: Is original research, specifically with regards to unsourced speculation on why Carpinelli's allegations against Nash were retracted and apologized for, allowed in the article?
  • Issue 7: The subject of the article, Jay Robert Nash, has threatened to sue Wikipedia.[27] Should this fact influence the editing of the article in any way or require a higher standard of editing (such as only allowing referenced facts to be in the article)?

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • Additional issue 1:

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.--Alabamaboy 14:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE: The dispute on the article appears to have been resolved by a compromise among all involved editors. As such, there is no longer a need for mediation. As such, I remove my agreement to mediate. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine articles on the Golden Dawn

edit

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A O), The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, Ordo Stella Matutina, The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn, Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati, Cipher Manuscripts, Stella Matutina

Involved parties

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Incessant discussion, in which neither parties can achieve a coherent consensus. There have been repeated attempts at discussions on the disputation with relevant parties, but thus far, is without success or agreement. Editing and Revert warring mainly taking precedence over discussion.

I have tried on many occasions to contact administrators and left messages on the administration board and asked for the articles to be locked down so that edit/revert wars could cease and proper discussion and proposals could begin.

Issues to be mediated

edit

Note to parties: Per the instructions, issues should be listed as bullet statements of actual issues to be mediated. Commentary on the nature of the conflict should be reserved for after the request has been accepted. Please provide the issues to be mediated in the form required. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Determine whether it is appropriate to include Opuaut in this mediation. This user is new as of June 10, does not have an established history as a Wikipedia editor, and has made a total of 10 edits, 2 being to his/her user page, 4 being to talk pages, and 4 being reverts to material written by one of the other parties to this mediation. Opuaut has not added any original content to any of the articles. -999 (Talk) 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Confirm the decision to restrict Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to the historical Golden Dawn, excluding reference to the modern Orders beyond a link to each Order's article. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Confirm the decision to avoid edit warring by listing all links to the modern Order articles, both internal and external, in alphabetical order. -999 (Talk) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Determine whether raw court documents such as affidavits and contracts are acceptable as sources under WP:V. If they are hosted on a particular Order's website, should their use be restricted to the article on that Order, or are they completely unacceptable as sources? -999 (Talk) 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Determine whether the self-published autobiographical websites of the various Orders can be used in any article or whether their use is restricted to that Order's article per WP:V. -999 (Talk) 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Determine the appropriateness of uncited judgmental material (such as calling people "Satanists") added to various Order articles by Zanoni666: EOGD, OSOGD, OSM, SRC&SA. -999 (Talk) 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Determine if two of the sources being offered, one being the paper by Bruce Wilson and the other the book Sword of Wisdom by Ithell Colquhoun, which make exceptional claims (as per WP:RS) that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, are appropriate to be used in any of the articles. And if they are used, should they be footnoted to that effect. - JMax555 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Determine weather the contemporary order articles should all be deleted as it was a bad idea to start with and unsupported in the last dispute. It was bound to degenerate into edit warring.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Determine whether it would simply be the better option to remove all of the contemporary orders pages and replace them only with links to the orders in the main GD article. Parties have not so far agreed on any of the content in those contemporary order pages and two are fully locked because of this disagreement.Frater FiatLux 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Determine what orders should actually be in the links section to orders. An order like "The August order of the Mystic Rose" a traditional GD order is not included, yet orders such as the "Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati", are included. The S.R.C. et S.A., would be better suited under Martinism and not traditional GD, and certainly doesn't conform to GD teachings as does the A.O.M.R. and are included in the links section.Frater FiatLux 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Determine if there is any possible way to define "tradtional" as regards the Golden Dawn at all, since it is by nature a polygot mix of many spiritual and religious traditions, from ancient Egypt to the modern era, and all contemporary groups offer a differently balanced mix of these influences. - JMax555 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Determine whether contemporary groups follow the general outline of ritual praxis as landmarked within Dr. Francis Israel Regardie's book "The Golden Dawn". - Kephera975 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Determine if there is any possible way to define "landmark" as regards the Golden Dawn at all, since it is a term drawn from Masonry that was never specifically used by the Golden Dawn in any historical documents, including Dr. Regardie's book, where the term does not appear. - JMax555 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Detemine whether historical material about the Stella Matutina should be kept distinct from the more recent and non-continuous modern order founded in 2000, Ordo Stella Matutina.

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit
  • Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

edit

Over at the alcoholism article we have a psychiatrist User:drgitlow who is removing any cited references that are critical of the AMA, APA. He has been asked (and told) to stop removing relevant, cited material and he has refused. He alone is deciding which authors/sources can be used and which ones should be deleted. He insists on writing the entire article from the AMA's POV. He removed several cites because a) the authors do not fit his criteria (they are not doctors) and b) what they have to say is critical of the AMA's promotion of alcoholism as a disease. Things have gotten very out of control in the article. The previous consensus was we would write the article from a NPOV and not take sides on the debate of whether alcoholism is a disease and show both sides of the debate. As it is now, drgitlow is controlling what gets cited and removing cited references he doesn't like. I have notifed the editors that I am formally requesting help on the talk page. Mr Christopher 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills High School

edit

Involved parties Gunbolt (talk • contribs) Karmak (talk • contribs) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages: Beverly Hills High School [1] User talk pages: User:Gunbolt[2] [edit]Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: WP:RFC link WP:AN/I discussion [edit]Issues to be mediated Beverly Hills High School article's use of a satirized article reference (Joel Stein) Issue 2 [edit]Additional issues to be mediated Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 [edit]Parties' agreement to mediate 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. Gunbolt 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [edit]Decision of the Mediation Committee Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.) For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)[reply]

Malo deletions Mediation

edit

Involved Parties:

I posted several external links on several different action figure subjects (GI Joe, action figures, Roadblock action figure, Shipwreck action figures, etc. to specific website pages that have photos and information regarding those specific action figures.

Malo mass-deleted all of the specific individual links on the various action figure Wiki pages without looking at any of the links, and claiming that they are all spam in spite of the fact that those pages all had similar links from the websites of other collectors. The website in question is not commercial, and it does not sell anything. It just has photos relating to the topics that I posted external links to.

The actions by Malo seem to be in conflict with the evidence that I saw with my own eyes of numerous other similar collector links at the action figure and GI Joe pages. Many of those links were in fact commercial, unlike the links that I posted, and yet Malo only deleted the links that I posted. Spider63

Apartheid (disambiguation)

edit

Involved parties

edit

Major parties

edit

Minor players

edit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

User talk pages: Bibigon Bhouston ChrisO CJCurrie HOTR Humus sapiens Isarig Jayjg KimvdLinde Leifern Nagle 6SJ7 Zeq IZAK FayssalF Xed

article talk pages: Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa Talk:Crime of apartheid Talk:Gender apartheid Talk:Sexual apartheid Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) Hafrada Talk:History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit

On or around May 29, HOTR created the series of apartheid-related articles listed above, including Israeli apartheid, which appears to have been his primary purpose. It has caused a lot of ill feeling and content/naming disputes across multiple articles, with renaming polls taking place on various pages, including user subpages, and everyone losing track of where they're supposed to vote and comment. KimvdLinde acted as an informal mediator.

The basic issues are whether (a) the separate articles should exist at all or should be subsumed under one title, such as Allegations of apartheid, and (b) if they do exist as separate articles, what each should be called (e.g. Israeli apartheid, or Allegations of Israeli apartheid, or Israeli apartheid (term). There is also the issue of which articles should be placed on Apartheid (disambiguation). This is a high-profile page because History of South Africa in the apartheid era links to it. There are also content issues, and disagreement about which sources to use and how to interpret them. The informal mediator believes that users on both sides of the dispute were trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. There have been violations of several policies, personal attacks, and pages have been protected for extended periods.

It would be helpful if an experienced mediator could lend a structure to the dispute, so that those involved know where to offer their opinions. There is a degree of urgency to this request, as someone has filed an RfAr. [37] Three arbitrators have voted to accept, although Fred Bauder has written that he agrees to the case being mediated if a mediator can be found. [38] Mediation would be preferable to arbitration because of the complexity of the case, and because it's largely a content dispute.

Parties' agreement to mediate

edit
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.

Major parties

edit
Agree
Disagree

Minor parties

edit
Agree
Disagree

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Reject:

  • First, two parties, identified as major parties, refuse to participate. No mediation can take place without the agreement of all the (major) parties.
  • Second, the level of argument and warring over the request itself convinces me that no effective mediation can take place.

The matter is hereby formally referred to the Arbitration Committee for resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/07&oldid=1146742661"