Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation archives  (edit) (changes)

Case Archives

0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 21 | 22 | 23 |

Archive of Summaries (Inactive)

Rejected Requests:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

Subpages:

All subpages of Requests for mediation

Contents 1 Straight Dope 1.1 Involved parties 1.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 1.3 Issues to be mediated 1.4 Additional issues to be mediated 1.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 1.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 2 Danielle Rousseau 2.1 Involved parties 2.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 2.3 Issues to be mediated 2.4 Additional issues to be mediated 2.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 2.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 3 Kaiser Permanente 3.1 Involved parties 3.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 3.3 Issues to be mediated 3.4 Additional issues to be mediated 3.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 3.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 4 Personal Attacks by Rjensen against Citizenposse 4.1 Involved Parties 4.2 Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: 4.3 Other steps that have been attempted 4.4 Other Issues in Dispute 4.5 Parties agreement to mediate 4.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 5 Relative Risk 5.1 Involved parties 5.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 5.3 Issues to be mediated 5.4 Additional issues to be mediated 5.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 5.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 6 Gnetwerker (talk • contribs) 6.1 Involved parties 6.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 6.3 Issues to be mediated 6.4 Additional issues to be mediated 6.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 6.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 7 Natasha Demkina 7.1 Involved parties 7.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 7.3 Issues to be mediated 7.4 Additional issues to be mediated 7.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 7.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 8 Fred Moss 8.1 Involved parties 8.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 8.3 Issues to be mediated 8.4 Parties' agreement to mediate 8.5 Decision of the Mediation Committee 9 Libertarianism 9.1 Involved parties 9.2 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 9.3 Issues to be mediated 9.4 Additional issues to be mediated 9.5 Parties' agreement to mediate 9.6 Decision of the Mediation Committee 10 User:Weidman 10.1 Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: 10.1.1 Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: 10.2 Issues to be mediated 10.3 Additional issues to be mediated 10.4 Parties' agreement to mediate 10.5 Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit] Straight Dope

[edit] Involved parties

• Cswrye (talk • contribs)
• Snarkhater (talk • contribs)
• Xploder12 (talk • contribs)
• Walachia (talk • contribs)
• There are also many anonymous editors on both sides of the issue.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Straight Dope [1]

User talk pages:

• User:Cswrye [2]
• User:Snarkhater [3]
• User:Xploder12 [4]
• User:Walachia [5]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• A discussion with a poll was conducted on the article's talk page.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Should the two external links to the Snark Archive and the SnarkPit be included in the article?

[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.

• Agree. Cswrye 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree 12.164.250.85
• Agree Snarkhater 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Xploder 04:00, 07 April 2006

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Failure of the parties to accept within the time allowed.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Rousseau

[edit] Involved parties

• Joseph Dwayne (talk • contribs)
• Jtrost (talk • contribs)
• PKtm (talk • contribs)
• Danflave (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Danielle Rousseau [6]

User talk pages:

• User:Jtrost [7]
• User:PKtm [8]
• User:Danflave [9]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Discussion by the different contributors on the article's discussion page.
• Reverting of articles to what the contributors beleive to be the best solution.
• User:Joseph Dwayne violating the Three-revert rule and stopping when warned by User:Jtrost.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Should Danielle Rousseau be an individual article with a summary of the character's biography on Characters of Lost while linking to the independent article by using Main article: Danielle Rousseau?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

• None

[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.

• Agree. —Joseph | Talk 23:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Failure of the parties to accept within the time allowed.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaiser Permanente

[edit] Involved parties

• FCYTravis (talk • contribs)
• Justen (talk • contribs)
• MarkSweep (talk • contribs)
• Ngk3 (talk • contribs)
• Ombudsman (talk • contribs)
• Pansophia (talk • contribs) - Undecided. I'm waiting to see what the panel of participants looks like. Will post my issues below, though. (Now opting out. See reasons below)...Now back on the fence, again see reasons below.
• Rhobite (talk • contribs)
• Thsgrn (talk • contribs)
• Will Beback (talk • contribs) My involvement on the page has been very limited, and I don't have a viewpoint on any of the items listed for mediation. -Will Beback 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Antonrojo (talk • contribs) Not sure if peer review would be more appropriate or a new more limited RfM since many of these issues seem to have settled down. Antonrojo 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Talk:Kaiser Permanente diff

User talk pages:

• user talk:FCYTravis diff
• user talk:Justen diff
• user talk:MarkSweep diff
• user talk:Ngk3 diff
• user talk:Ombudsman diff
• user talk:Pansophia diff
• user talk:Rhobite diff
• user talk:Thsgrn diff
• user talk:Will Beback diff
• user talk:Antonrojo

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:AN/I first discussion
• WP:AN/I second discussion
• WP:PPol discussion

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• (1) Is the infobox, as shown in this revision appropriate for use in the article, and, specifically, can editors include the official logo, key leaders, and website of the subject of the article in this infobox?
• (2) Is the introduction, as shown in this revision, WP:NPOV, and, if so, can editors protect this revision of the introduction until consensus can be reached on an expanded or modified NPOV replacement?
• (3) Is the Structure section, as shown in this revision NPOV, and, if so, can editors protect this revision of the Structure section until consensus can be reached on an expanded or modified NPOV replacement?
• (4) Should the inclusion of this personal online blog, as shown added in this revisions difference, be avoided in the article, given that the most active editor of the article in question is also be the owner of that blog? Can the blog be avoided given that it primarily aggregates content from other sites already listed in the external links of that article?
• (5) Is the statement on the use of a Bob Dylan song in a commercial, as shown in this revisions difference, appropriate to be included in the article on the basis of a Newsweek editorial?
• (6) Is the section on a bond issue by Kaiser Permanente, as shown in this revisions difference, NPOV? Should its inclusion be avoided prior to consensus being reached on it being NPOV, if it is not yet NPOV?
• (7) Is the section on the Tahoe Agreement, which forms the structure of the entities of Kaiser Permanente, as shown in this revisions difference, NPOV? Should its inclusion be avoided prior to consensus being reached on it being NPOV, if it is not yet NPOV?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

• (1) Please edit this section to include any additional issues that you might feel should be mediated. Please sign issues you add with four tildes ~~~~.

Some of Pansophia's issues (there may be more):

• Should users be able to make unilateral decisions regarding controversial edits (proven controversial by back and forth edits and issues raised on talk pages) without attempting to negotiate the issue on the talk page?

• Should admins be able to use Protection as a substitute for the 3R rule in order to protect deletes, when other users have asked for an inclusive process and a balancing approach.

• Should Justen be able to repeatedly call people "sock puppets" and "dishonest" even after people have gone out of their way to prove otherwise (at risk to their own privacy).

• Should Justen or any other user be able to label the article with an NPOV tag as punishment for not conforming to their POV?

• Should Justen be able to invoke the draft/stub (so marked in edit summary) of a section that user pansophia herself removed (issues #6 and #7) as evidence of "pov". Is bringing this up for "mediation" a sly pretext for gathering more support for calling his edits "neutral".

• Does placing a corporate logo and only positive corporate information in a special box constitute promotion of a corporate brand, privileging propaganda over any negative information?

• Should users, working as a team, be able to follow a user they disagree with to another page, and revert their edits there as leverage for their issues on another page?

• Should users be able to call for the "banning" of a user who opposes their edits? - Especially if there's a history of other activity to promote their editing cause (such as the above mentioned WikiStalking).

• Does employment by the organization covered by the Wikipedia article suggest the possibility of bias, or at least the need to remain open to the good faith informing bias concerns?

• As in #5, should Justen and/or other users both be able to complain one article is lack of controversy but a *list* of links is something that needs to be cleaned up. Shouldn't questions of sources occur on Talk pages, so editors can determine that a list of links is possibel, but for the sake of neatness one will do?

• This editor did not initially add the blog, but has edited it (in direction of NPOV). It does not aggregate info from the other sites and refuses to get into any issue of ownership, and it's improper to use an editorial dispute to try to extract that information.

• As for activeness of Pansophia, please note she tries to catch her own mistakes, and much of what looks like activity is correcting tiny mistakes. Main editorial activities involve trying to limit or balance Kaiser propaganda from Kaiser employees.

• As for the intro, Pansophia votes for Michael Ralston's as the NPOV. Justen is trying to get the version that leaves out the existence of critics "protected". This is the Kaiser POV by fiat.

• Pansophia objects to only certain elements of infoboxes as corporate branding and glorifying particular individuals: she wishes to remove corporate logo and current CEO. She would like to balance corporate url in privileged position with one that is not corporate-sponsored. She would also like to add negative information to the quick facts, such as OSHA violations.

--Pansophia 06:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[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.

• Agree. Justen Deal 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. RfM could be trimmed down and resubmitted but probably faster to review in its current form. Antonrojo 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed a section of commentary from the agreement section; please feel free to discuss whether or not to submit to mediation on the article's talk page. Commentary has been removed from the request process because it makes accepting and rejecting cases very difficult, as well as frequently causing problems that make mediation more difficult. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ill take it. -Ste|vertigo 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks by Rjensen against Citizenposse

Personal Attacks by Rjensen against user:Citizenposse have been made regarding History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire in accusing Citizenposse of being a radical right wing group or militia member. Citizenposse asserts he has never belonged to any right wing groups or militia groups in his life. He regards these accusations as a violation of the WP:NPA rule.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involved Parties

• user:Rjensen
• user:Citizenposse

[edit] Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article Talk Pages Talk:History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party: Rjensen slanders Citizenposse in the comments of the article history page of History_of_the_United_States_Republican_PartyCitizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Republic of New Hampshire [[10]]: Where Rjensen makes first personal attack against Citizenposse.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Three Reversion Limit Rule violated by Rjensen Rjensen has now violated the rule against more than three reversions of a page in reverting History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party four times in one day.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's own talk page

[edit] Other steps that have been attempted

Citizenposse has attempted discussion, regarding both History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire, but Rjensen gets more belligerent and has gone and violated the revert rule. Rjensen seems to believe his version of history is the orthodox one and refuses to examine and fairly consider all the references Citizenposse has brought forth, on either topic.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Issues in Dispute

Rjensen is furthermore attempting to suppress real history through deletion of the Republic of New Hampshire page, instigating his RfD shortly after Citizenposse started editing the page, and repeatedly reverts the edited History of the United States Republican Party, specifically deleting references to the true founding of the party in Exeter, NH on October 12, 1853. Citizenposse has provided ample and diverse references to support the claim, and has put in a request to the New Hampshire Historical Society for further scholarly references. They have said they will be responding on Monday. Citizenposse therefore requests mediation on these issues and that Rjensen's reversions be reversed, and that he halt further reversions until mediation is concluded.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also found that Rjensen has attempted to vandalize the article on Amos Tuck, founder of the Republican Party with unsupported allegations and unreferenced conclusions.Citizenposse 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Rjensen has used HIS OWN RESEARCH as references for his edits of articles on the Republican Party. Isn't that a violation of the NOR rule?Citizenposse 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen has established a history of suppressing history, particularly on his own "conservative-NET" email list, in several instances: One ExchangeCitizenposse 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parties agreement to mediate

• Agreed Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Citizenposse" chose a highly inflamatory username common among right wing militia; he uses the militia theory that there were independent republics like the nonexistent "Republic of New Hampshire" and he denounces people (me) as leftwingers. (actually I edit a daily conservative blog, conservativenet.) He used a local newspaper story to try to rewrite the history of the Republican party--going so far as to change the title of a book (Kleppner's) from 1854 to 1853. As I tried to tell him no scholar accepts the theory that the GOP was founded at a secret meeting in 1853. That meeting led to nothing at all. The so-called founder (Tuck) did not even join the Republican party until 2 years later. Citizenposse moved into several articles (on Republican Party, History of republican Party, and Tuck) and made wholesale changes without any discussions despite repeated warnings that scholars reject his pet theory. Rjensen 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not now, and never have been a member of any militia group or other extreme right wing group. I do not subscribe to any arguments of militia groups. I have never read any publications put out by any militia groups. IMHO They have been a bane on legitimate 2nd Amendment exercise. I have provided numerous scholarly and other references supporting the real history. Rjensen's prejudicial view of me based on my chosen user name is reflective of his arrogance, refusal to consider valid historical sources, and insistence on his own opinion as orthodoxy.Citizenposse 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find no evidence of any www.conservativenet.com, conservativenet.net, or conservative.net blog in existence anywhere on the net. Rjensen may therefore also be committing fraud in his counterclaims.Citizenposse 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject. A) Parties don't agree to mediate, B) Not a mediation case.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative Risk

[edit] Involved parties

• Jim Smith
• Nephron
• Tim Lambert
• John Quiggin

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Relative Risk [11]

User talk pages:

• User:Nephron [12]
• User:TimLambert [13]
• User:John_Quiggin [14]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

This stems from a broader discussion on the John Brignell page which has transferred to the Relative Risk page. There has been extensive discussion of this matter on both talk pages by all sides. Mediation Cabal was attempted for the Brignell page but fell through when the mediator was unable to give the matter his full attention. That page was put to Arbitration but rejected. It will be put to Mediation at a latter date. This particular issue clearly cannot be solved by consensus; it needs the intervention of a third party; hence mediation.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Article contains a claim about the stated position of Brignell with respect to relative risk which is untrue. The claim is verified by links to partial statements of his position. This should be replaced by a true statement of his position together with the appropriate verifiable reference. The replacement is being rejected because this change does not fit with the subtopic under which the claim is made.

[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.

• Agree Engjs 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnetwerker (talk • contribs)

[edit] Involved parties

• Gnetwerker (talk • contribs)
• Ardenn (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

User talk pages:

• User_talk:Gnetwerker [15]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:TINMC [16]

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• I'm trying to mediate under the Mediation Cabal with this user, but she is uncivil towards me and refused to apologize for insulting me, and further demands I leave Wikipedia. Ardenn 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[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.

• Agree. Ardenn 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree/Reject/Refuse -- Gnetwerker 06:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Demkina

[edit] Involved parties

Principal parties:

• KeithTyler (talk • contribs)
• Askolnick (talk • contribs)
• Dreadlocke (talk • contribs)
• -Lumière (talk • contribs) aka Étincelle (talk • contribs), Lumiere (talk • contribs)

To a lesser extent - I request that the requirement of these parties to consent to mediation be deemed optional as they are not actively part of the current dispute, though they have been previously involved and have been notified of RFM:

• Julio Siqueira (talk • contribs)
• Tisthammerw (talk • contribs)
• Rohirok (talk • contribs)
• Mikkalai (talk • contribs)
• BillC (talk • contribs)

Possibly valid parties - The following people have no other WP history and may not be familiar with the process or want to be seriously invovled; I did not notify them of RFM:

• Brian Josephson (talk • contribs)
• SkepticReport (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Natasha Demkina [17]

User talk pages:

• User:KeithTyler: Submitter
• user:Askolnick: [18]
• user:Julio Siqueira: [19]
• user:Dreadlocke: [20]
• user:Étincelle: [21]
• user:Tisthammerw: [22]
• user:Rohirok: [23]
• user:Mikkalai: [24]
• user:BillC: [25]

I did not notify the "possibly valid parties" as I am not sure of their level of involvement, suitability as parties, or level of WP familiarity.

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [26]
• WP:MEDCAB [27], [28] (combined, but material exists at both cases)

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Is the current state of Natasha Demkina too heavily weighted towards Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal administered test?
• Do any of the sources added on [29] meet WP:RS or WP:V?
• When it proves to be very difficult to find sources meeting WP:RS or WP:V on a topic, is it acceptable to lessen the restrictions (under the principle of WP:IAR)?
• Can a personal website be a primary source for its own content; namely, the opinions of its author?
• Does the behaviour of any of the participants in this dispute towards the dispute or the other participants warrant a conduct RFC or other referral or redress?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

• Should Nobel Laureate Professor Josephson's web page relating to the Natasha Demkina investigation by CSICOP be regarded as a 'personal web site', or as an account of the conclusions of a professional research investigation? Is his critique a Reliable Source/Citable Reference for the article?"

[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.

• Agree. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• agree `'mikka (t) 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Dreadlocke 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Rohirok 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Wade A. Tisthammer 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Askolnick 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Moss

[edit] Involved parties

• 83.146.55.85 (talk • contribs)
• The JPS (talk • contribs)
• Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk • contribs)
• user:MikeHobday
• etc

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Fred Moss [30]

User talk pages:

• User:The JPS [31]
• User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

[32]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:AN Administrator's Noticeboard

AN is not a step in the dispute resolution process. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Fred Moss is a valid article that I created successfuly after another user had failed in its creation several times. I wrote the majority of the article, and provided plenty of sources to ensure its notability. Throughout this, JPS has twice attemtped to delete it, and we have got in many strops about an image, which I eventually relented on. Finally, Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the page as an attack page, when it clearly was not one. Throughout this I have had to fight tooth and nail for the article to remain, and have attempted to remain civil througout. I feel very victimised and am close to giving up on this. I have done nothing but act in good faith, and provide accuarte information.
• In addition, me and my user account, User:Gypsy Eyes have been called sockpuppets of an entirely seperate user, with the only evidence seeming to be an interest in similar articles. I have performed no vandalism, as my contributions demonstrate.

• • For the record, the page was deleted as CSD A7. The media files associated with it were deleted as CSD A6. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[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.

• Agree. 83.146.55.85 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. MikeHobday 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Odd... the above user is not a party to the dispute, has not contributed to any of the deleted pages in question nor any of the associated talk pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I labelled some of the user pages as sockpuppets so the second half of the complaint seems to be about me. However, happy not to be included. MikeHobday 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject:

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism

[edit] Involved parties

• Cadr (talk • contribs)
• Serge Issakov (talk • contribs)
• rehpotsirhc (talk • contribs)
• Rhobite (talk • contribs)
• Pat8722 (talk • contribs)
• RJII (talk • contribs)
• Irgendwer (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Libertarianism [33]

User talk pages:

• User:Pat8722 [34]
• User:Cadr [35]
• User:Rhobite [36]
• User:Rehpotsirhc [37]
• User:RHII [38]
• User:Irgendwer [39]
• User:Serge Issakov [40]

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• [41]

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Should the Libertarianism article introduction accepted by unanimous consensus by those voting on the Talk page be accepted as the introduction, or should the alternative version be accepted, even though it was rejected by all who voted, because the consensus version is alleged by one user to be "unilateral", "false", "circular", etc.?
• Should Libertarianism be described as a political philosophy in the introduction, as agreed by consensus on the Libertarianism Talk page, or should it be described as just a philosophy (without political)?

[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.

• Serge 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Agree.

• Cadr 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• No. I don't agree. It is a question of expert knowledge to find correct content. So it makes no sense to involve new members who must all become experts, too. I cannot teach them to experts. But I agree that there are different opinions. So you must only mark your opinion. It could be so easy. --Irgendwer 10:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Irgendwer engages in personal attacks and is not fluent in English. Rhobite 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Weidman

An anon user is harrasing me and making personal attacks on me. In addition, this user makes many reverts. I don't know who this is and so cannot give contact info on this person. See Talk page for Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Disorder.

[edit] Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attachment_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactive_attachment_disorder#Mercer

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

I have tried to state where I got my information and be concilliatory.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

Issue 1: Stop the personal attacks on me and saying that I am defaming and should be banned. Issue 2: Stop reverting my edits Issue 3: Mutual agreement to respect alternative points of view.

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

None

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

• Agree. --Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 11:45, 24 April 2006

I received a message saying that I should contact this part of the web site, but I'm not sure what's required of me. I have added comments and signed them; I haven't deleted or otherwise altered ayone's material, nor have I made any personal remarks, although some have been made about me. I have been told that a statement I made about EBT status was deleted at one point and replaced by someone else.

For the record, I am female; my mother thought it was cute to name me after my father; I changed my spelling legally at the same time I was divorced and resumed my maiden name, and I did so in an apparently fruitless effort to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding. Dr. Becker-Weidman was informed of this fact some months ago, and in fact had to edit a letter to a journal with respect to this point before publication was permitted.

What there is to be mediated on my side escapes me, but no doubt such a process would be entertaining, so I certainly agree. Jean Mercer

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: The initiator fails to even list the parties to the dispute, making it impossible to determine who should or should not be agreeing. The issues set out are not grounds for mediation; I see no reason to believe that there can be useful mediation on the issue.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)