Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/20

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

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages


KarlBunker

edit
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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 03:49, March 1 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

KarlBunker's talk page, K. Scott Bailey's talk page. Some examples of what prompted mediation on the Joseph McCarthy page

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Mediation Cabal case

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • How does someone with his (KarlBunker's) history of conflict gain the ability to warn other members?

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • Should KarlBunker's attitude towards Mediation Cabal members be permitted?

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 --Mechcozmo 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but KarlBunker has responded to my requests (finally!). If he will go through with the Mediation Cabal, I will delete this case shortly. Otherwise this case will remain open. --Mechcozmo 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MedCab case is now closed. I jumped the gun in opening this. Sorry. --Mechcozmo 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --K. Scott Bailey 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

On Hold pending outcome of MedCab request approval by all parties.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a note here - the first issue to be mediated listed above doesn't seem to have been written in the best of faith, and I would suggest its rewording, as it is stated in policy that any user may warn any other user when a valid policy has been broken. The time limit for all parties to agree to mediation is about to arrive on this case, but I'd also like to make the point that, in most cases, it is impossible for the Mediation Committee to medaition user conduct disputes, being only able to reach compromises and resolve disputes based on content. Perhaps the best way for the three parties to resolve thier dispute would be to start the dispute resolution process over again, but instead looking at the article where the dispute stated (presuming that it has not already been resolved, in which case in the eyes of WP:DR, there is no conflict - only some problems between a couple of users, with no true basis). Advocacy may be appropriate for this dispute, as where mediators must be impartial, an advocate has more leeway to make his/her opinion know, and offer frank advice to the advocee. Thanks, Martinp23 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, parties do not all agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 21:01, March 3 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • The term "deaf-mute" is almost universally offensive to deaf people. See Deaf-mute and the external link to the National Association of the Deaf. Use of the term is equivalent to using the "N" word directed toward African-Americans. User Ward3001 can provide additional expert sources regarding this issue if needed. Should "deaf" always be reverted to "deaf-mute"?
  • User 24.0.97.119 has reverted user Ward3001's edits to remove the offensive term several times, even after Ward3001 explained the issue on the Talk page, Talk:The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter. User 24.0.97.119 has not commented either by Edit summary or the Talk page for any of his/her edits. Can User 24.0.97.119 continue to revert to "deaf-mute" repeatedly and indefinitely?

Additional issues to be mediated

edit

None listed.

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.
  1. Agree.Ward3001 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Reject, parties did not agree within 7 days.

For the Mediation Committee ^demon[omg plz] 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


National Socialism

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 16:06, March 8 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

This is a contentious debate that has rolled across many pages for many months. No matter how many times these issues are thoroughly discussed and temporarily resolved by a majority of editors, after a few weeks the issues returns with text being inserted that opens up the debate once again. Here is the debate from 2004: Talk:Socialism/Socialism_and_Nazism, And it continues: Talk:Fascism#Response_to_RFC:, Talk:Fascism/Archive_17, Talk:Fascism/Archive_13#The_.22fascism_is_socialism_brigade.22, Talk:The_New_Deal_and_corporatism#Original_research

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Should National Socialism redirect to Nazism or National Socialism (disambiguation)?
  • Is anyone who publishes a book or article on fascism, nazism, or collectivism to be considered a major scholar on the subject, or is it appropriate for a majority of editors active on a page to agree on which scholars are considered the leading scholars and highlight their views over more marginal views?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of fascism consider fascism a "far-right" form or usually allied with the political far right?
  • Do the majority of major scholars of Nazism consider Nazism a representative form of socialism?

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • Should the libertarian/Austrian School analysis of national socialism, Nazism, and Fascism as forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism (and even the New Deal of Roosevelt) be considered not marginal but so important and major a school of scholarship as to be placed in various entry leads and occupy a relatively major part of various entries?
  • If an entry primarily represents a marginal POV among scholars, is it appropriate to mention this fact in the lead or early in the article? Is it appropriate to delete such text on the grounds of "let the reader decide?" of "Who determines what is marginal scholarship?" This is especially a problem on The New Deal and corporatism

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.
  1. Agree. --Cberlet 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree. --Timeshifter 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC). See talk page.[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Rejected, all parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 01:27, 10 March 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 18:35, March 9 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Witness parties

edit

(We don't need Jeffpw's agreement to mediate this, so he isn't fully "involved.")

I disagree. Jeffpw (talk · contribs) is directly involved in this. Labyrinth13 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit
  • Discussion on talk page.

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Labyrinth13 had added to article Zodiac Killer a link in the "External Links" section which arrives at his own web site: http://labyrinth13.com/ZFiles.htm "The Z Files". This site contains some information about the Zodiac killer, some of it not available elsewhere. However, one of the apparent primary purposes of this web site is to sell the book "Labyrinth 13", written by Curt Rowlett.
Correction: Labyrinth13 added and then removed once it was pointed out as improper, a link to his website.
It is my admitted supposition that user Labyrinth13 is Curt Rowlett and does profit from this link. As such, I think it violated WP:EL and should stay removed. My suppositiont that Labyrinth13 is Rowlett himself is not disputed where asserted on the article talk page.
Recently, Jeffpw and I got into a heated argument over a citation he felt was flimsy. He thinks I'm using the external link to make a point, since Labyrinth13 joined into that discussion on the side of Jeffpw. I really don't feel that. Rather, I would say that I went to the Z Files link thinking it was a neat site I had missed, and was shocked at what I found. It did explain a few things (to me, at least) about the character of one of the people I had been arguing with the day before, but I would have taken the same umbrage at any similar profiteering action I ran across.
I think the link to the site should be expunged from the article unless the link to book sales are removed from the page linked to.
I removed the link, and Jeffpw reinstated it saying that I am trying to make a WP:POINT. I would suggest that is the pot calling the kettle black in this case.

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.
  1. Agree. Heathhunnicutt 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


V. Z.

edit
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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 15:44, March 13 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • jkb-'s wikistalking of me here
  • jkb-'s wikistalking of me at other projects.

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.
  1. V. Z. Agree.

Statement -jkb-

edit

It is not a very long time ago that the User:Zacheus, which is another account of the renamed User:V. Z., has been warned ([2] by User:Thatcher131) not to import his problems in other projects to en.wikipedia or to Meta. Now we have it here again (see [3]). Although, here some short points.
First, if somebody posts such a request, it is normal to tell the other person (i.e. me), that it has been posted. V. Z. Announced me this case with a delay of 2 days on a page, where he can read not in use.
Background: the user V. Z. has been bureaucrat on the Czech Wikipedia (see cs:User:Vít Zvánovec) for a long time. After he tried to develop a one man project, there has been a voting about him, which ended by about 66,45 % for his desysoping. As he did not accept the vote, I asked a help from the steward m:User:Fantasy, who desysoped him. Some months later he returned to the cs.wikipedia, and after some time of disturbing activities he has been banned by the arbitration commitee for one year, some times prolonged as he tried to break this with some sockpuppets (the number is not known – a part is here but not all). Then he was banned indef, as he gave the password to his account known on his blog and asked everybody to edit . In both cases (desysop and arbcom) I played an active role against him, indeed. In the following months he tried to disturb the whole project by some more actions:

  • trolling on Meta in the time 2005/2006 (see Cswiki issues as one example)
  • personal attacks on his blog and other internet pages, denouncing the sysops of the en.wikipedia as fascists (Czech original list of fascists and Englsih comment - GP is another name of the user - and vs Tony Sidaway and the community of the cs.wikipedia as communists, fascists, secret policemen, pigs...
  • new trolling since October 2006 on en.wikipedia and Meta (see deCheckUser Wikimol, Zacheus vs. Yann, Zacheus vs. Dmcdevit, another attempt to delete not favorized pages
  • the page s:cs:User:-jkb-/Vanda has been used by many clerks by checking some vandal accounts; just about 99 % of the accounts have been classified as vandalizing sockpuppets (about 60) and blocked

More over, I have some more reasons to inform me, what happens. And, this is no stalking, this is just watching of activities, which prooved to be disturbing in the past.

  • User:V. Z. published my real name and my domicile against my will not only on his blogs, but also here – see e.g. here and other places
  • more times he claimed that I was collaborating with the communist secret police (stated in the arbitration against him [4] etc.), which is not only a very bad accuse for somebody, who’s family has been persecuted in the East, but it can be seriously dangerous for my family members still living today in the Czech Republic
  • not only because of his trolling in different projects it is quite normal to have some pages marked up in the watchlist; I am working very close with the oldwikisource, first of all then I am responsible as an admin-bureaucrat for the cs.wikisource which I have created one year ago with 30 pages – now nearly 1700 ones. The User:V. Z. tried to troll also there with (at least) two of his sockpuppets (s:cs:User:Zacheus and s:cs:User:Kiki, blocked 24.09.2007, checked by m:User:Snowdog) – so it is for me necessary to see his disruptive actions in other projects
  • by the way, after his sock puppets have been blocked on cs.wikisource he threatened one of the admins there with legal threats
  • after he asked for renaming of his account here and promissed to leave the project and after he returned and leaved and returned again, and after he is stil – even today – editing with (at least - ???) two accounts ([5] and [6]), I see the only possibility to get informed to avoid a great damage.

Normally, it seems to me this would be a case for the arbitration commitee, maybe not here but on Meta. But I must decide if I shall spend my time for searching and formulating this case of personal revenge or if I shall try to do my work for the projects, so I leave this open. Naturally, I would like to do the second job, but slowly I am fed up and not amused. In fact, I seem to have more and more difficulties to do something here when I have still to spend my time on some fights of this user.
I have asked some involved persons to comment this case. Thanks, -jkb- 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other statements

edit

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Rejected, this is not within our scope as mediators. We typically do not take on user-conduct disputes, as they are situations usually not conducive to proper mediation. While I am not formally referring this, I do recommend that ArbCom consider taking this on.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Indigenous Aryans

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 13:53, March 12 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Issue 1 - Insert text: It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there. [1] After the statement The claim is thus that the Vedic and pre-Vedic language evolved out of an earlier stage in situ, somewhere in Northern India.
  • Issue 2 - remove statement: (postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian[2])
  • Issue 3 - remove statement: Both are dates are compatible with a "mild" position if an early date for PIE (such as the 6500 BC of the Anatolian hypothesis) is assumed.
  • Issue 4 - remove statement: The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a single identifiable opinion, but to a sentiment that may result in various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common ideology.[4]
  • Issue 5 - remove statement: "Indigenous Aryans" is usually taken to imply that the bearers of the Harappan civilization were linguistically Indo-Aryans[8]
  • Issue 6 - remove statement: The "Indigenous Aryans" position would be a necessary corollary of an Indian origin of the Indo-European languages.[10], and replace with actual words form the reference material (same as issue 1)

Additional issues to be mediated

edit
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

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.
  1. Agree. Sbhushan 13:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. WIN 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Reject, parties do not agree within the 7-day timeframe.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of male performers in gay porn films

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 11:00, March 20 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Can article include hundreds of links to the external commercial website, that clearly profits from that?
  • Can such linking be considered link spam?

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.
  1. Agree. Futurix 11:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree.—Chidom talk  12:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 22:12, March 22 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit
  • Added Citations/References to Article Per "Clean Up Needed" Tag
  • Discussion/Talk
  • Avoidance
  • Disingaged - resulted in the article being destroyed
  • Contacted Wikipedia Information Team
  • Block on Editing Denied Since One Party is an Administrator
  • Discussed/Surveyed other experts in the field and was urged to persue the concern.
  • Current: Requesting Mediation

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Misuse of administrator position (threatening editors, purposefully making the article sloppy).
  • Lack of interest in correcting the article with intent to discredit the topic by keeping it labeled for "Clean Up" or "Disputed" with no clear reason why. It appears that the "dispute" is the fact that the article exists to begin with. Personally I'd rather see it removed entirely than misrepresented.
  • Subjectivity of article (biased on opinion rather than science)
  • Removal of prevalence statistics cited with references from peer-reviewed scientific studies with the claim that the studies were "bogus". No statistics have been replaced.
  • Repeated subjective labeling of medical doctors who specialize in toxicology and environmental medicine as "clinical ecologists" who are "in minority" when they are actually MD's who belong to the AMA and are real doctors.
  • Subjective wording in the definition section that segregates doctors and downplays environmental specialists as noted above. Doctors are doctors and are all licensed as such.
  • Labeling of the Case Criteria for MCS as "Environmental Medicine Definition of MCS" when a cohort of nearly 100 scientists, MD's, PhD's, and researchers developed the Case Criteria.
  • Derogatory tone towards environmental medicine rather than factual statements. "Clinical Ecology is not recognized by the American Medical Association or any other mainstream medical body, although several have commented on the paucity of evidence for the disease and its mechanism." This statement is untrue and requires revision and citations. There have been hundreds of studies on MCS. A simple PubMed search will show that.
  • Removal of a proper addressing of the recognition of the condition with cited references to the many organizations that do and don't recognize the condition. The statement in the bullet above is not true as the Centers for Disease Control has recognized and issued statements on MCS, Social Security grants disability on the basis of disabling symptoms based on the diagnosis of MCS, Housing and Urban Development supplies housing accommodations for MCS patients, and the Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes the limitations MCS imposes on patients who need accommodations to access public facilities. These were all cited with reference and deleted.
  • Numerous incorrect citing of references past and present(opposite of true findings).
  • Numerous incomplete citing of references past and present(citing flawed findings without noting the flaws for objectivity).
  • Partial sentences and sloppy editing that appears intentional to discredit the topic.
  • First sentence in Etiology "MCS may be a physical or psychological disease, and there is no clear consensus about what causes the symptoms". Indeed, there may be several causes." is untrue. This statement is not factual and designed to create controversy and should be deleted in favor of findings of valid, scientific studies.
  • Under Psychological Disorders "Conventional medicine does not..." is not factual. Many doctors who diagnosed MCS are just that... doctor's, MD's, members of the AMA, allergists... very "conventional" doctors. This statement needs revision to be made objective and not subjective based on the authors personal opinion.
  • Miscellaneous Theories needs to be removed. It has no scientific basis connecting it to MCS. Review of the studies in PubMed shows no relation or studies that connect coagulation and MCS. This is subjective opinion and not scientific fact.
  • This statement is untrue, subjective, and emotional. Words like "blamed" need to be removed. A citation is also needed, if one can be found. There are many studies that show pesticides cause endocrine disruption, air fresheners cause asthma, etc. These symptoms are not "lack of correlation" but rather quite correlated. "People diagnosed with MCS suffer widely assorted symptoms blamed on exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals.” This lack of correlation between symptom and chemical trigger makes research difficult.”
  • Under Treatment the best known treatment for MCS per peer-reviewed scientific studies is avoidance and making the home chemical free. This section is misleading and needs revision. The statement about co-occurring mental disorders is not only consistent with the occurrence of mental disorders in the general population but the treatment of "co-occurring" disorders does not address the treatment of the MCS. Quite to the contrary the treatment for many mental illnesses is drugs that have been show (and are cited further down) to cause harm and exacerbation of symptoms in most MCS patients. This is a critical and important topic that should be discussed as an additional notation after the treatment for MCS is laid out.
  • This statement is subjective and based on opinion. Doctors are doctors and many who are not in environmental medicine prescribe the same treatments. This statement needs references and citations to support it. "Treatments offered by practitioners of environmental medicine specify the avoidance"
  • The sections were rearranged and make no sense under Treatment. The bullets are a protocol, widely used, called the Ziem/Pall protocol, yet the paragraphs have been rearranged in nonsensical order so that the bullets are not explained and appear after other irrelevant citations. Another attempt to make the article sloppy to discredit the illness rather than make an objective presentation based on scientific facts.
  • Under Possible Triggers "Many chemicals are claimed to be culprits of MCS" this statement is subjective and designed to create doubt and controversy. Many studies have been peer-reviewed and published that ascertain the symptoms and they symptoms sets are rather consistent as the disease progresses. This statement needs to be removed and has no citation or scientific basis.
  • Under Critical Reviews Barrett is not an MD, he fabricated his credentials and is currently being sued and his sites are all either in process of being removed or already removed from the Internet by the Court. His views, being opinion and not scientific fact, are not those of an MD but those of a scam artist who falsely identified himself with medicine however he has not completed any medical or scientific education. His links need to be removed. "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: a spurious diagnosis, Stephen Barrett, MD. — A skeptical article hosted on Quackwatch"
  • If the tags are put up, then the person ought to be willing to fix it or work to fix it rather than just slap them up without reading the article as occured in this case. It was only later that the article was read and revised, yet again, to be sloppy enough to warrant the tags. This appears to be an effort to not have a valid article. I am seeking a collaborative effort to make this article objective, clear, and cited with the most recent evidence (unless listed under a history heading) and the removal of "needs cleanup" and "disputed" tags.

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.
  1. Agree.
  2. Disagree. Cool Hand Luke 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

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 Bryant 12:05, 23 March 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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 18:35, March 9 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Witness parties

edit

(We don't need Jeffpw's agreement to mediate this, so he isn't fully "involved.")

I disagree. Jeffpw (talk · contribs) is directly involved in this. Labyrinth13 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit
  • Discussion on talk page.

Issues to be mediated

edit
  • Labyrinth13 had added to article Zodiac Killer a link in the "External Links" section which arrives at his own web site: http://labyrinth13.com/ZFiles.htm "The Z Files". This site contains some information about the Zodiac killer, some of it not available elsewhere. However, one of the apparent primary purposes of this web site is to sell the book "Labyrinth 13", written by Curt Rowlett.
Correction: Labyrinth13 added and then removed once it was pointed out as improper, a link to his website.
It is my admitted supposition that user Labyrinth13 is Curt Rowlett and does profit from this link. As such, I think it violated WP:EL and should stay removed. My suppositiont that Labyrinth13 is Rowlett himself is not disputed where asserted on the article talk page.
Recently, Jeffpw and I got into a heated argument over a citation he felt was flimsy. He thinks I'm using the external link to make a point, since Labyrinth13 joined into that discussion on the side of Jeffpw. I really don't feel that. Rather, I would say that I went to the Z Files link thinking it was a neat site I had missed, and was shocked at what I found. It did explain a few things (to me, at least) about the character of one of the people I had been arguing with the day before, but I would have taken the same umbrage at any similar profiteering action I ran across.
I think the link to the site should be expunged from the article unless the link to book sales are removed from the page linked to.
I removed the link, and Jeffpw reinstated it saying that I am trying to make a WP:POINT. I would suggest that is the pot calling the kettle black in this case.

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.
  1. Agree. Heathhunnicutt 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of countries by military expenditures

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.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 10:26, March 25 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

edit

Articles involved

edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

edit

Issues to be mediated

edit

Adding the E.U. to the list of countries by military expenditures.

Additional issues to be mediated

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.
  1. Eurocopter Tigre Agree.
  2. Daniel Chiswick Agree

Decision of the Mediation Committee

edit

Rejected. I see no previous attempts at solving this dispute. While there was some discussion on the talkpage, it was not between the users in question. The only interaction I see between users here is a few vandalism warnings, then a notice of filing for mediation. I think just honest discussion about this would work, or perhaps a WP:MEDCAB case.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Bryant 2001 page 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/20&oldid=1142569106"