Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Animal testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Animal testing


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: Request of one of the parties.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 03:48, January 30, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

  1. Crum375 (talk · contribs)
  2. Rockpocket (talk · contribs)
  3. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
  4. TimVickers (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

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

[edit] Issues to be mediated

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 main issues are that one party makes frequent use of primary sources, in a way that amounts to original research. There is an overreliance on reverting as an editing tool, rather than collaboration. There is from one editor, as I see it, a desire to push a certain POV, rather than to write an informative article, and there is a disagreement as to the purpose of the article, and what areas it should cover. One editor appears also, as I see it, to have invited other editors to the page to cause a problem, rather than to improve the article. So the point of the mediation would be to try to facilitate a more respectful and collaborative editing environment.

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

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.
  • Additional issue 1

Although I am willing to try mediation if people think this will be helpful, I think we would be better trying some other methods to solve any disputes we have, before requesting mediation. I am personally unaware of any article RfCs and think our past talk page discussions have been quite productive. Possibly rather harsh at times, with ownership issues and assumptions of bad faith occasionally surfacing, but overall reasonably effective at resolving disagreements. Recent examples are Talk:Animal_testing#Animal_welfare_groups, Talk:Animal_testing#Draize_test and Talk:Animal_testing/archive7#Chart. Personally, I favour an article RfC dealing with the issues I have highlighted on the talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)./

  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Crum375 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Rockpocket 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Accept
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to mediate this case myself, provided the parties have no objection. WjBscribe 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)