Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: Various delays in getting started led to lack of interest in continuing the mediation.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents

[edit] Talk:Ross Jeffries

Case name Talk: Ross Jeffries

[edit] Involved parties

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:

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

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Excessive deleting of comments by Masssiveego.
  • Determine when talking about the works of an author is advertising.
  • blanking the talk page.

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

  • Wiether Speed Seduction is not a cult.
  • Wiether Ross Jeffries is relevant.
  • Wiether Court cases involving Ross Jeffries are relevant, and

should be included in 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. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to help mediate this - however parties should be aware that I am not actually on the mediation committee, although I would like to be. Would everyone be alright with me mediating? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
While you are deciding whether or not to accept me as a mediator, you may also want to specify whether you would prefer public or private (email) mediation. (See here for the advantages of private mediation.) Note that because I have not yet become part of MedCom, if you choose private mediation, the MedCom will probably want to be CCed in order to evaluate me. (If that is a problem, I suggest rejecting me as a mediator.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)
I prefer a public mediation. I would like to accept your offer however the meditator is assigned by committee. --Masssiveego 05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the mediator is generally not assigned by the Committee. Instead, a mediator, (or perhaps a nominee), offers, and you of course may accept or reject that mediator. (It is important that you feel comfortable with the mediator. Mediation would be undermined if any of the involved parties were uncomfortable with the mediator from the beginning.) So thanks for your response, may I take it as an acceptance? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
SecondSight agreed to accept me as a mediator in this edit. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer public mediation also. --SecondSight 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I accept your offer Armedblowfish. --Masssiveego 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So, is this assigned then? If not, I'll chip in as well, otherwise I'd rather help at other unassigned mediations -- Drini 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we are waiting for a response from WoodenBuddha, who does not appear to have edited for awhile. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we start the process over, or continue without WoodenBuddha. I think this is taking far too long. Three months is too much wasted time. I want to get to the bottom of how the rules of the talk page works, and figure out what is acceptable. I think if we can't get at least a start for mediation by 9/05/2006 we should just close this case. --Masssiveego 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I'm consulting with the rest of the mediation committee about how best to address your concern. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, in case that seems curt, I think we could make some progress in the mediation even without WoodenBuddha. However, I am concerned about cutting WoodenBuddha out of the loop. Wikipedia:Mediation#What_will_happen_when_you_ask_for_mediation_.3F states that "If any party fails to agree, the mediation will be rejected, as mediation cannot take place without the agreement of all parties." (This is actually referring to consent to mediate, not consent to a particular mediator, but I think the idea is the same.) It would be possible for you and SecondSight to reach an agreement on something, but for WoodenBuddha not to agree with it when he/she came back. While we could start with issues that WoodenBuddha was not involved in, there is no guarantee that WoodenBuddha would return in time to discuss the other issues. However, your desire to begin mediation sooner rather than later is very understandable, and I apologize for the various delays. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See talk page for mediation. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This mediation is cancelled. --Masssiveego 03:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed Various delays in getting started led to lack of interest in continuing the mediation. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)