Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/32

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

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages


Cordillera Oriental 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: 16:31, December 8 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1: Articles such as "Cordillera Oriental", "Cordillera Central" and "Cordillera Occidental" should be kept as disambiguation pages and separate by country if applicable. For example The Cordillera Occidental (Colombia) which is separate from the other miles away only sharing the same name should have its own article. Other sources like encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta use the country denotation[1]


  • Issue 2:

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. OracleDude 19:16, 8 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, insufficient dispute resolution — the article requests for comment, as pointed out on the talk page, has only been running for around 48 hours and has few comments. In addition, I would suggest trying the Mediation Cabal before filing formal mediation, as they are an excellent group of mediators who may be able to resolve this problem possibly quicker than formal mediation, given the Mediation Committee is developing a slight backlog of sorts at the present time.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


University of Missouri 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: 00:41, December 9 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

None

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:41, 9 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject. The Mediation Committee and requests for mediation is the second-last step in the dispute resolution chain on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lists the various types of dispute resolution available. They include:-
It is generally expected that at least one of the third party input options has been attempted, and informal mediation has been tried, before a request for mediation will be accepted. Discussion on the talk page, whilst required for any form of dispute resolution to be considered, does not fufill the requirement of 'prior dispute resolution'.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism of Christianity 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: 08:15, December 9 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1
  • Example link 2

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Inclusion of Christian Apologetic works in "Further reading"
  • Inclusion of information from Ted Peters in "Compatibility with science"

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Biblical1 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Note: To filing party, please provide links to prior dispute resolution attempts in the "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted" section above. As the second-last step in the dispute resolution process, requests for formal mediation will not be accepted without good-faith attempts at prior dispute resolution (including requests for comment (on articles), third opinion, surveys, and enlisting the help of the Mediation Cabal for informal mediation).
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, insufficient dispute resolution (as noted by the failure to note it above despite active editing, as well as this comment). Furthermore, as this looks like it will possibly develop into a user conduct RfC, mediation cannot run parallel to such proceedings. In summary, this issue at this time is not suitable for mediation from the Mediation Committee.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion 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: 17:27, December 10 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Which version should we continue editing from: the Featured Article of 2004, or a more recent one, eg. this one.
  • Should the article portray cold fusion as fringe science ? pseudo-science ? pathological science ? proto-science ?
  • Should we talk about theory vs experiment ? How ?
  • Should we present theories of cold fusion that significantly differ from conventional physics ? How ?
  • Should we include self-published books from experts in the field ?
  • Which websites and references should we include ?
  • Should we say that patents related to cold fusion technologies have been attributed ?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Experiment is the reality check of science, not consensus and the suppression of peer reviewed and other experimental evidence is a violation of NPOV.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Ron Marshall (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Disagree about need for mediation, Agree if there is Admin request for such See talk. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Will only agree to mediation if a mediator has a degree in physics, chemistry, or related field. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 10 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation in the current situation (see talk: "In my opinion, mediation is unnecessary here and may be merely an attempt by Pcarbonn and perhaps Ron Marshall to draw out what they perceive as a discussion...However, if there is an Admin who wants this to go forward, we can do it" — parties must agree to mediation without influence from others, as it's entirely voluntary). Furthermore, the Committee has no way of providing specialist people with specific degrees to undertake certain cases.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict 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: 02:42, December 19 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Article text
  • article approach
  • We'd like to have our article unprotected if that's ok. I think discussions can proceed forward on a consensus-driven basis, as we are all experienced and civil editors. I for one am willing to accept a comrpomise, if that's the only way to move this dispute resolution process forward to successful resolution. I'm a little surprised that no admin have come by yet at all to move things forward a little bit. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • specific issue: I would like to simply add the following text to the article. for some reason, the editors on the other side keep saying that's excessive, and will only accept a link. i would liike to us to come some srt of resolution or compromise on what text to use, and move on already. So let's try to find agreement on a sentene, a phrase, a few wods, whatever, just something which we can all try to compromise on and agree on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.* The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups.

  • Ref: Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain - I haven't really been involved, beyond a bit of talk page discussion. I don't think I need to get into this. <eleland/talkedits> 03:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Disagree. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 19 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation, and this also would have possibly been rejected due to a lack of prior dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Physical attractiveness 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: 01:11, December 22 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit


Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Whether disputed text is to be included.

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Loodog (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree. Cheeser1 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Palestinian people 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: 20:17, December 26 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Whether to use term "nation" to refer to Palestinians.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. <eleland/talk edits> 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree.--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disagree. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:00, 27 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Note: Formal mediation requires that prior dispute resolution have been attempted before it is accepted. This can include an article requests for comment on the subject matter, a third opinion, a Mediation Cabal case, in addition to the negotiation in discussions on the talk page. Please list what prior dispute resolutions have been attempted in the appropriate section above, thanks.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse 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: 21:25, December 21 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Intense and lengthy talk page discussions starting around 1 June 2007; there are now 3 archives all devoted to discussions between August and December of this year
  • RFC #1 on 20 September
  • Noticeboard posting on 29 September
  • RFC #2 on 23 October

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  1. How do we treat the very existence of SRA? All parties agree that SRA is a controversial issue, and that there are "skeptics" who believe that the phenomenon either does not exist, or is almost entirely fantasy and conflation with only the barest kernel of truth. However, is this position significant enough, based on the relevant sources, that it should hold sway over the article as a whole? In other words, should the article describe skepticism "in some quarters" and very briefly treat skeptical explanations, or should it describe the skeptical view as the view which carried the day, and provide detailed information about the skeptics' conclusions?

  2. What is the scope of this page? Does it refer strictly to those cases which were presented in the sources as "Satanic ritual abuse," or does discuss what the former SRA therapists now call "ritualistic, organized abuse," "multidimensional child sex rings," or "multi-victim, multi-perpetrator abuse?" Should it discuss cases which appear, based on the sources, to clearly meet one of the definitions of the latter terms, but are not actually described as "satanic ritual abuse" per se? Would it be appropriate to fork this page, not along POV lines, but to clearly separate the two concepts?

  3. In that vein, what is the significance of the intense popular interest in SRA dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially in the United States? Is this an incidental phenomenon of little relevance to a serious discussion of SRA, is it a signficiant part of the SRA story in context, or is it in fact central to understanding the issue, and the main reason to have an article at all?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Regardless of opinions in the public, scientific and clinical arenas, what is the evidence, scientific, clinical, and otherwise, to support the existence of satanic ritual abuse? This should include a brief definition and examination of the differences between evidence gained from experiment-based science and clinical therapy (e.g., it's illegal to conduct torture experiments on humans, although it could help prove or disprove many findings related to cult ritual abuse that are purely clinically-based). —Daniel Santos (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other terms to consider for #2 are "cult ritual abuse" (1620 googles) and "cult abuse" (30,700 googles). There are no articles currently in Wikipedia by these names and they are often used to describe the same phenomena as well. —Daniel Santos (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we describe where SRA (whichever definition we're using) occurs just by looking at the sources, or do we need a specific source identifying the locations and prevelance? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need online verification of sources, considering the high emotional content causing people to shade the truth in favor of their own interpretation? (In other words, people may have more of tendancy to shade or misinterpret sources than in other articles.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we use clearly biased sources, such as (pro-existence-of-SRA) the Leadership Council or (anti-) the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, if generally reliable? (These are examples used in related articles; I have little knowledge of most of the sources used in this article, and the bias is not always obvious.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should a section be added to the article about survivor accounts and resources? If so, what verification criteria should these be held up to?Abuse truth (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional issue

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. <eleland/talkedits> 21:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. *** Crotalus *** 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Daniel Santos (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. Abuse truth (talk) 03:39, 26 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bosnian Genocide 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: 17:25, December 23 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree.Osli73 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Disagree. Grandy Grandy (talk) 00:09, 29 December 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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Sealand 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: 22:19, January 8 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk · contribs)
  2. Gene Poole (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

  • Because of the weeks-old disagreement over whether Sealand is a micronation or a sovereign state, progress has been slow and every edit seems to reignite this disagreement. Past attempts of dispute resolution have failed and the dispute is becoming more argumentative rather than productive.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, in light of the fact this matter is presently being pursued with the Arbitration Committee (see Wikipedia:RFARB#Principality of Sealand). Mediation does not work well in parallel with Arbitration.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (241-260) 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: 04:15, January 10 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Shakajo (talk · contribs)
  2. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1
  • Example link 2

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Many people agree that "so i herd u liek mudkipz?" is a popular internet meme. If it was not then there would not be so many people saying that it is. However, whenever anybody attempts to submit information about it, said information is immediatly VANDALIZED off the face of Wikipedia!

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • There is no case here - consensus on the talk page is that the meme is to be removed on-sight. If anything, this mediation page should be deleted and the user sanctioned for assuming bad faith. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Shakajo (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree - this is an end-run against the consensus currently in place regarding the meme (i.e. not w/o any reliable sources). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:07, 10 January 2008 (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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy 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: 01:28, January 14 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Example (talk · contribs)
  2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1
  • Example link 2

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1 I heard with my own ears in person from George W. Bush that his step-father, George H.W. Bush shot JFK. It was confirmed by Barbara Bush over the telephone.
  • Issue 2 The "editor" has been ejected I think? Nlu?

I am the eyewitness, is there no room for testimony?

I've tried to make several other edits, but most of the time, someone who was not there and had absolutely nothing to do with it, has called what I said into question. If I proposed original legislation, or came up with the story for a movie, surely I can rectify errors, or at least have my words available to serious scholars.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. TogetherinParis (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, please don't waste our time. You added content to an article that was at best silly, at worst libelous, and were rightly reverted. Even were that not the case, you haven't even discussed it with the other party or on the article's talkpage - parties are asked to make effort to resolve the dispute before filing for formal mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

julius iii edit

view edit delete watch
Filed: 09:11, January 15 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

  1. Example (talk · contribs)
  2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

  • Example link 1
  • Example link 2

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • Issue 1
  • Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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 is more than two parties involved in this case.
  • 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (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-Committee members should not edit this section.
Reject, failure to provide details.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/32&oldid=1142569092"