Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sun tanning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: Successful
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents

[edit] Sun tanning

view edit delete watch
Filed: 01:33, February 5, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

  1. Pharmboy (talk · contribs)
  2. Dandelion1 (talk · contribs) (also uses Dandelion (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

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

  • Multiple discussions in talk
  • Third Opinion

[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 lead image for the article

[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.
  • The appropriateness of the inclusion of images depicting all manners of choice of dress (clothed, topfree, nude) for people engaging in sun tanning in an article on the subject of sun tanning.
  • Whether or not to segregate nude and topfree sun bathing or sun tanning by using different article titles "sun tanning" and "sunbathing" and whether or not there is any real difference between meanings of the two words to justify two articles.
  • The establishment of validity of inclusion of nude and topfree images in image galleries labeled "sun tanning" and "sunbathing" to decide if those images belong in their respective articles on the same subject. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (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. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Pharmboy (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:49, 6 February 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.
Accepted
For the Mediation Committee, -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take this case as a non-Mediation Committee member, as per Anthony's request. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to Keilana's offer

Keilana (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), a very competent administrator with mediation experience has asked to join the Mediation Committee and expressed an interest in taing this case to help the Committee with our backlog and demonstrate her abilities in this area. However, as Keilana is not a member of the Committee at the moment, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Keilana mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.

Please note that if consent isn't given by all parties above within seven days, then you will have to wait for a Committee mediator, which will take a while longer. On all accounts, I encourage you to take Keilana's offer, however the choice is, of course, yours.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Agree. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)