Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45

Formal mediation case
Article	Genesis creation myth (talk)
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. EGMichaels (talk · contribs)
3. Bus stop (talk · contribs)
4. Cush (talk · contribs) Removed by rquest
5. Lisa (talk · contribs)
6. Afaprof01 (talk · contribs)
7. PiCo (talk · contribs) Removed by Request
8. Griswaldo (talk · contribs) Removed by Request
9. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs)
10. Ben Tillman (talk · contribs)
11. UberCryxic (talk · contribs)
12. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)
13. Hans Adler (talk · contribs)
14. Nefariousski (talk · contribs)
15. HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs) removed by request
16. Deadtotruth (talk · contribs)
17. Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)
18. Aunt Entropy (talk · contribs)
19. JzG (talk · contribs)
20. Noleander (talk · contribs)
21. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
22. David Eppstein (talk · contribs)
23. Keahapana (talk · contribs)
24. Ed Poor (talk · contribs)
25. Ἀλήθεια (talk · contribs)
26. Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
27. Akhilleus (talk · contribs)
28. Grantmidnight (talk · contribs)
29. NickCT (talk · contribs)
30. Johnbod (talk · contribs)
31. Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) removed by request
32. Reboot (talk · contribs)
33. Aindriahhn (talk · contribs)
34. Plumbago (talk · contribs)
35. Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
36. Gabbe (talk · contribs)
37. Tediouspedant (talk · contribs)
38. Jfdwolff (talk · contribs)
39. Swift as an Eagle (talk · contribs)
40. Masterhomer (talk · contribs)
41. Avraham (talk · contribs)
42. Newman Luke (talk · contribs)
43. Mk5384 (talk · contribs)
44. History2007 (talk · contribs)
45. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) THIS ISSUE IS UNRESOLVABLE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT GENESIS, IT'S ABOUT THE DUAL MEANING OF THE WORD "MYTH" Removed by request
46. Quietmarc (talk · contribs)
47. Dweller (talk · contribs)
48. Mildly Mad (talk · contribs)
49. DVdm (talk · contribs)
50. dave souza (talk · contribs)
51. Agathman (talk · contribs)
52. Garrettw87 (talk · contribs)
53. The C of E (talk · contribs)
54. Rossnixon (talk · contribs)
55. AuthorityTam (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Genesis creation myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.
• RFC
• ANI
• Declined ANI
• Survey
• survey 2 ( We have a possible result on this 'survey' now.)

Primary issues

• Whether it is necessary and proper (advisable?) to include Creation Myth in the Title of Genesis Creation Myth

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1. Whether it is appropriate to change the title of the article to 'Creation according to Genesis->Genesis creation myth->Biblical creation->Genesis creation narrative->Creation in Genesis OR Biblical creation myth
• Additional issue 2. Whether the scholarship of religious groups can be used as reliable sources for positions of said religious groups.
• Additional issue 3. Whether the term "myth" is sufficiently distracting that editors should avoid using it in titles unless its formality is readily apparent; whether the term "myth" should be considered similar to the term "cult" and used only with the same care; whether WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Religion be updated (contrast WP:WTA#Myth and legend).
• Additional issue 4. Whether enough votes have been recorded in the survey 2 to gain a 'stable' result.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

1. Agree. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Masterhomer 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree Uncle Ed (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. EGMichaels (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. (However, I would appreciate a clarification of what "additional issue 2" is supposed to be about. I am not aware of such a dispute.) Hans Adler 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree. Ἀλήθεια 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. to issue 1 - the use of the term "Myth" in the article title. I am in agreement with Hans Adler that I am unaware of specific disputes regarding additional issue 2. -- Avi (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Am I a party? I have an opinion but I don't think I've edited the article. However, if this finally nails the endless pushing for a rename then I'm all for it. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Disagree. Notconfirmed as a "myth" The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. Ooops, misred that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Take my name off the list. This debate is not about whether Genesis is a "myth", it's about the meaning of the word "myth" itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Chit chat removed.) AGK 22:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15. Disagree - simply because I am not editing frequently and do not wish to hold up proceedings. Mediation can continue without me if necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer a listed party. AGK 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. AgreeMk5384 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Agree NickCT (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Agree Aindriahhn (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Agree Quietmarc (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Agree Grantmidnight (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Please take my name off the list - I won't be editing this article any more. (That should make Lisa happy! :) No hard feelings, but this just goes on and on and... PiCo (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer a listed party. AGK 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22. Please take my name off the list - I won't be editing this article any more. (That should make Lisa and Weaponbb7 very happy) this whole creationist/religionist POV-pushing has gone way too far · CUSH · 10:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Agree. This is solvable potentially. Although I'm pessimistic. The mediator will be well-advised to ensure everyone holds their tongue when labelling others (eg "creationist") as it's most unhelpful. If everyone can remember that all of us merely want Wikipedia to be the best it can be within its own definitions, policies and guidelines, we can get somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Disagree. RFC would probably be a better option, but this is one of those articles destined to draw eternal controversy.UBER ^(talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Agree. --AuthorityTam (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Disagree. I don't see why making a one-time comment on an RFC should cause me to have to be involved with this article on a longer-term basis. So please carry on without additional input from me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Agree. SAE (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Agree. --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Agree Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Disagree. There is nothing to mediate. Consult a dictionary. The article title is highly appropriate and by definition compatible with all points of view.

    How come I was not notified about this, although my name is on the list? DVdm (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, consult a thesaurus. Surely you don't mean to suggest that there are NO OTHER titles that could be legitimate do you?EGMichaels (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties accept mediation. For the mediation committee Xavexgoem (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Hang on, not all the "parties" are actually parties. I think it might take a little while to shake that out. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outside comment) I'm inclined to agree - we have one user that believes they are not a party, and the other user that has disagreed has explicitly said "carry on without me". Give it a while for people to figure out where they are. It seems like we have people from all sides coming forward, so perhaps this should go ahead with the willing majority even if some decline to participate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outside comment) Yet, they're still monitoring that page !

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline as resolved. The title 'Genesis creation narrative' seems to have been agreed on, so there is no need for mediation at this stage. For the committee, AGK 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	World Wrestling Entertainment (talk)
Submitted	23 Jun 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Screwball23 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Darrenhusted (talk · contribs)
3. 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs)
4. SGGH (talk · contribs)
5. Justa_Punk (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

• Disputed section posted by Screwball23; subsequently deleted by editors

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Screwball23 talk 07:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, I'll bite. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. No I do not agree. !! Justa Punk !! 08:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified. AGK 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Android (operating system) (talk)
Submitted	23 Jun 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Brandorr (talk · contribs), filing party
2. H4lfN3ls0n (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Android (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

• Issue 1: H4lfN3ls0n kept removing (without explanation) link to Comprehensive Android Frequently Asked questions document henceforth referred to as "Android FAQ", and exhibit A
• Issue 2: H4lfN3ls0n is labeling link as SPAM when there is NO commercial aspect, and link is clearly being added to enhance Wikipedia article. "Android FAQ" in question is the most comprehensive document of Q&A on Android. Collected from IRC channel managed by Google.
• Issue 3: H4lfN3ls0n is an anonymous user whose motives are suspect. I wish to bring to arbitration committee but need to mediate first. I am willing to share person information to verify identity.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Brandorr (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Question: I see that the filing party was today blocked for "edit warring, refusing to accept consensus". Does this render mediation unnecessary, in the eyes of those others who are involved? AGK 11:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Parties notified. AGK 11:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. As noted by AGK, this was a case of edit waring and refusal to accept consensus. It thus falls into the category of "issues not appropriate for mediation" and is rejected, per Guide.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	oral cancer (talk)
Submitted	09 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Hilllaguna (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Orangemike (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

unable to contact "orange mike" who banned my IP address and who knows nothing about the oral cancer page subject

Primary issues

• Issue 1 That my Ip address is banned for unstated reasons
• Issue 2 The content in a very important part of wiki, the oral cancer page has turned into nonsense and is scientifically been altered to where it may even be harmful in some respects to readers. I reviewed this page 12 month s ago and it was significantly correct at that time. It has deteriorated horribly with misinformation since then. There are individuals representing early detection devices that have no proven success at finding oral cancer trying to post information about their device on this page. I apologize if the code etc of my request is poor. I am not a code warrior but a cancer authority.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Hilllaguna (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)hilllaguna aka Brian Hill[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

Reject. I am sorry that you think there are problems with the oral cancer article but I think mediation would be premature, especially as you don't see to have discussed your views with other editiors of that article. If you want to propose changes to the oral cancer article, I suggest doing so at Talk:Oral cancer. If you want to contact Orangemike, I suggest leaving a polite message at User talk:Orangemike requesting further information about the block.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Genesis creation narrative (talk)
Submitted	12 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Gniniv (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Raeky (talk · contribs)
3. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
4. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)
5. Mann_jess (talk · contribs)
6. Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)
7. Rossnixon (talk · contribs)
8. Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs)
9. Apokryltaros (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Genesis creation narrative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Attempted discussion and page protection on both

• Talk:Objections to evolution
• Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Primary issues

YEC and Pro-Evolution Bias

• Issue 1: Gniniv has petitioned that WP:NPOV is being violated. He claims that considerable minority viewpoints (Young Earth Creationism and Biblical literalism) are being suppressed from inclusion in the above articles by the majority of the editors. He cites the edit wars that have occurred from User: Til Eulenspiegel's efforts to edit Genesis creation narrative as an example of unfair WP:NPOV in the majority of the editors.
• Issue 2: Violation of WP:CONS in the above articles. Editors involved refuse to compromise and allow alternative interpretations of the evidence involved.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Not all parties agree to mediation. Gniniv asked what processes he should follow during an editing dispute, I outlined them here and advised him NEVER to immediately jump to a RFM, but his first response was to create this. There is NOT consensus between all parties for a RFM, only Gniniv. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This insouciant request for mediation is completely unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gniniv's ideas of "neutral point of view" is to rewrite the articles in questions in order to lend undue weight to what is, at best, a fringe minority, as well as to cast unnecessary, unreasonable doubt on what is otherwise unanimous scientific consensus (i.e., suggesting that there is ongoing research in Intelligent Design even though there is none, as well as implying and or stating that no one has actually observed evolution in action). Gniniv has also been repeatedly asked to provide specific suggestions to improve specific parts of the articles in question, as well as to not turn Wikipedia talkpages into forums. He has repeatedly ignored both requests. Editors who do not agree with Gniniv are directly or indirectly accused of being illogical and having unscientific, political and religious motives for wanting to support general scientific consensus.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The above comment is not the first time that the position of world faiths with millions, or billions, of adherents has been declared a "frine minority". With this assertion repeatedly coming up from a small number of very authoritative-sounding editors, I predict that sooner or later, a mediation process will be required to determine unambiguously whether or not certain theological positions are to be determined as "fringe" or "heresy", if that is neutral, and if so to determine which religious viewpoints are "fringe" or "heresy", and which are permissible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come you have not explained how adhering to a literal interpretation of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible is scientific, and how come you refuse to explain why Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, and their political cronies are not a fringe minority in the scientific community if these people refuse to participate in science to begin with? I mean, why is it fair for scholars to regard demonstrated pseudosciences as legitimate sciences? Why should we regard objections that are solely/deliberately religious and political in nature, i.e., demanding that science is wrong wrong wrong because you were told that the world is less than 10,000 years old because the Bible said so, to be a valid view point in discussing matters of science?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing "matters of science"? You call these religions "demonstrated pseudosciences", but clearly if it had truly been "demonstrated" to everyones satisfaction, there would be little or no controversy apparent. I don;t think the people who declare religious cretion "debunked" have demonstrated anything to everyone's complete satisafaction and have failed to convince everyone with their arguments thus far, which more often than not, call for anyone disagreeing with them to be removed from the equation, to ensure "consensus" (more like to ensure "conformity" with their philosophical POV) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite apparent that you are deliberately misinterpreting my statements in order to accuse me of being unfair and bigoted against all religions. If Scientific Creationism is not debunked, and is actually a science, then how come its proponents refuse to provide physical evidence for their statements, rely solely on arguments based on logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance and obedience, and, refuse to participate in science? If you intend to continue misinterpreting my statements in order to paint me as being anti-religious, would it be at all possible to at least explain why Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design should be considered legitimate sciences, AND explain why regarding them as a pseudoscience or fringe movement is tantamount to an unfair, unscholarly attack on all religions everywhere?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is debunked, lots of people must have missed it and not gotten the word, or been shown exactly where and how it was debunked. But we aren't even discussing Scientific Creationism here. This is about wikipedia ruling the sacred texts of major world religions to be debunked fringe, which is somewhat jumping the gun in pushing world opinion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we are discussing Scientific Creationism here in the Wikipedia article I'm concerned with ("Objections to Evolution"), and you continue to ignore my request for you to explain why the literal interpretations of sacred texts need to have a say in the scientific community.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed this RfM covered that article as well, I have no idea what is going on there, as I don't watch it and never read it. I think you may be right about the scientific community being more relevant to that article; presumably each article should be treated according to its unique scope rather than a boilerplate solution, although they were put in the same RfM. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was talking about the Genesis Creation Narrative, do you honestly think I would continue droning on and on about the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, or continually badger you about why it is imperative for a "dispassionate scholar" to treat what has been demonstrated to be a religiously motivated pseudoscientific, anti-science movement and the scientific community with equal weight? As far as I've seen, your extreme eagerness to attack me as being an anti-religious bigot, as well as your extraordinary reluctance to realize that you are misreading my statements (assuming that your misreading is accidental and not deliberate) is not convincing me that this request for mediation is sincere.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would agree that this RfM was unwise to throw editors from two completely different debates together; like I said, I have no idea what may be going on with that debate on that other article, but many aspects would not be applicable from one to the other And please accept this apology, for not noticing that this was done, and assuming you had meant the GCN debate at first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This mediation is completely unnecessary and is really just an example of further disruption. The editor who has asked for mediation just started editing the page days ago and has barely partaken in the normal processes of talk page discussion to this point. In regards to Til comment above, all religious beliefs are treated equally here on Wikipedia. Some religious beliefs may be more popular than others but none of them are on par with dispassionate scholarship. These beliefs, when relevent, should be mentioned as religious beliefs and not as alternate views from those put forth by scholars. Til knowns this but refuses to accept it, and now it appears he has a friend who is even more eager to cause disruption. Mediation is not necessary, but further discussion at ANI might be.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Til, you know full well that Apokry was not calling any religion fringe. This has been discussed repeatedly. Gniniv thinks that WP:NPOV means adding in his personal opinions to articles without consideration of WP:Weight, reliable sources which actually back up that opinion, and without any responses or context from the rest of the world, as though they were entirely uncontested. He's been repeatedly warned for being disruptive when he doesn't get his way. Mediation will solve nothing except wasting everyone's time trying, once again, to fruitlessly explain policy to an editor who doesn't care. Jess ^talk _cs 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When supposed "dispassionate scholarship" is being used to endorse one school of thought's favorite Bible interpretation, and any other Bible interpretations are being labeled "fringe", there's a problem, Real, honest scholarship does not do this, but indicates there is disagreement about a subject when there really is, and does not pretend there is only one legitimate interpretation that "everyone" supposedly agrees on, lest they be "fringe" and not count as part of the "everybody" who supposedly agrees unanimously how to interpret it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Til, the idea that one can do science using Bible interpretations instead of actually going out and doing science is, at very, very best, adhered to by an extreme fringe minority within the scientific community. If you come to the conclusion that my original comment here is referring to religious communities at large, as opposed to within the scientific community, you have misread my statement.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The only policy I've seen Gniniv use appropriately is WP:TE in reference to himself on Talk:Objections to evolution. I find it abusive, that a user who believes "organisms are open systems" needs to be sourced, can think they can contribute positively to NPOV. - RoyBoy 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Gniniv (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. agree Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. disagree --Mr Fink (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. confused. I don't know what the point of mediation would be. Gniniv is in a distinct minority and is being effectively marginalized by the community of editors. Mediation cannot and should not change that. If there are behavioral issues, they probably should be dealt with elsewhere, but as far as I can tell this is an issue of consensus going against Gniniv's editorial perspective and mediation cannot help with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. not named as a party, and not interested in mediation. This is just part of an attempt to push extreme fringe views way beyond WP:DUE. Recentisms like Young Earth Creationism (contemporary, that is, not medieval, which is to be discussed in historical context) have no place in a serious article on biblical philology and exegesis. There are other articles dedicated to this sort of stuff. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gniniv is currently blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring. The block will expire on the 15th of July. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Friedmann equations (talk)
Submitted	19 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Kentgen1 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. JRSpriggs (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Friedmann equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Third opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kentgen1#3O_discussion_on_editorial_changes_to_Friedmann_equations

Informal mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-09/Friedmann_equations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentgen1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary issues

Kentgen1 is herein refered to as K1, JRSpriggs is referred to as JR

• Issue 1

K1 wishes to make modest changes to the introduction and assumptions sections of the Friedmann equations that are designed to soften the tone of certainty in this mathematical model of the universe and emphasize its hypothetical nature. JR will not allow any of the quite reasonable changes that K1 suggests. K1 knows that there are more assumptions than are mentioned in the assumptions section, but JR will not allow them to be mentioned there. K1 knows that the choice of words is important in the introduction section and wishes to make the introduction seem less doctrinaire, the Friedmann equations being a mere interpretation of Einstein's general relativity (GR) that is formulated from the FLRW metric and Einstein's differential field equations. It is a mere interpretation, NOT a derivation and it "governs" nothing, because the FLRW metric is foundational to Friedmann and is not itself derived from GR, presuming unstated premises and silent assumptions itself. FLRW and Friedmann are not the only reasonable metric and model that have been proposed either. This should be pointed out in the article, but JR disallows it.

As written, the article is extremely misleading despite a one line caveat buried deep in the text. K1 suggests modest changes that tend to ameliorate the dogmatic tone of the article and restore a sense of neutrality to this important Wikipedia article. K1 wishes to expand the caveat that is given in the body of the text and move it or repeat it in the earlier sections in order to give it more emphasis. JR will not allow this and seems to be trying to protect the article's inflexible pedantic tone. Without sufficent emphasis on the hidden premises and silent assumptions, the Friedmann equations give far too much unqualified support for the hypothesis of the universe's accelerating expansion rate and the existence of dark energy. With this added emphasis, however, these two proposed additions to the "standard model" of cosmology would be much more difficult to accept. K1 thinks that this is exactly what JR fears.

K1 believes that JR is in love with the Friedmann equations, with Acceleration and Dark Energy. JR has vetoed other modest changes by other editors in the past who wished only to balance the tone of the Friedmann equations article.

• Issue 2

JR seems unable to read. K1 points out that the fluid that is referred to in the introductory section is the so called "ideal gas" and this is actually stated in the body of the text. But, JR denies that there exists the assumption of the substance and substrate of the universe that is assumed to behave like an ideal gas in the Friedmann equations. However, if this fact is admitted, one must ask if it is not also an assumption that this ideal gas must be regarded by the Friedmann equations as a mere laboratory system that may possess a density and pressure and upon which work (energy) may be performed or from which work may be extracted by the external frame of reference or system.

K1 believes that this is a crucial point that is neglected by the article. This is a huge additional assumption: that there is or must be a frame of reference, a larger system, outside the universe (!). There are several other unstated assumptions and hidden premises that are implied by the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric which should be explicitly descibed in any truly neutral Wikipedia article. But, JR's bias will not permit him to approve the changes that I suggest.

Kentgen1 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• the Friedmann equations do not assume the ideal gas law. If they did pressure would not appear as a variable to be determined. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nothing more than a very minor content dispute. All I have done is to try to explain to Kentgen1 why he has been reverted by other users; and once (so far) reverted him myself for good reason. Kentgen1 has not expressed his position in a coherent way — he is extremely long winded, bringing in many irrelevancies, and when he does touch on the issues he does not justify his position but merely reiterates it ad nauseam. He did not provide me with proper notice of this proceeding: he merely mentioned it, but provided no details and no link this this page. I thank Michael C. Price for providing me with a link. To me, Kentgen1 appears to be someone who cannot stand not getting his own way; and is using wiki-lawyering to try to override the normal process of making decisions on article content. As to the substance of the issue, see Friedmann equations#Mixtures. Neither radiation nor dark energy can be considered an ideal gas — no temperature is even mentioned. And dust is only "ideal" in a degenerate sense. Certainly the mixture of these substances does not act like an ideal gas. And this mixture is merely one possible application of the Friedmann equations. Other, more realistic, formulas for density and pressure could be used with them, if desired. So Kentgen1's edits are misleading, off topic, and poorly worded. Thus they have been and will continue to be reverted, unless he changes his style of editing. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 3

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Kentgen1 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Issues to be mediated are far too lengthy to be workable; that coupled with the use of such comments as "JR seems unable to read" in reference to another party makes it clear that this dispute as presented would not benefit from mediation. (As a personal note, I would encourage the parties to pursue third-party informal involvement, such as through requests for comment or third opinions.) For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Many Jesus-related articles (talk)
Submitted	30 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Noloop (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Ari89 (talk · contribs)
3. Cyclopia (talk · contribs)
4. Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)
5. MishMich (talk · contribs)
6. Andrew c (talk · contribs)
7. ReaverFlash (talk · contribs)
8. Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs)
9. Antique Rose (talk · contribs)
10. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs)
11. AKMask (talk · contribs)
12. Tmorton166 (talk · contribs)
13. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Historical Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Historical_Jesus:_90.25_of_sources_are_Christian_theologians_and.2For_Christian_Presses
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Historicity_of_Jesus
• ANI last week [1]
• ANI this week [2]
• Article Talk pages.

Primary issues

• Labeling as "fringe theory" the view that Jesus didn't exist. As a practical matter, the exclusion of skepticism about the existence of Jesus from articles
• a) Many statements of fact that Jesus existed, sourced mainly to Christian theologians, b) Refusal to ever identify such sources as Christian theologians to the reader

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Noloop (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. This is getting solved on Talk:Historicity of Jesus and it is akin to forum shopping by Noloop. --Cyclopia^talk 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Talk pages and other attempts at resolution appear to have been fruitless, and resulted with targeting of the lodging editor by calling for him to banned. I am a new editor to one of these articles, and it does appear to me that NPOV has gone out of the window here, with items of belief and doctrine being presented as fact, rather than as what they are - POV. - MishMich - Talk - 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Though I am quite confident of the progress being made on the talk pages --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Disagree. I just read this, and apparently, this has been brought to various noticeboards at least 5 times in the past. The current discussion at FTN seems to have consensus. The current discussion at RSN has some progress for sure as well, and the various article talk pages seem to be ticking along just fine. It seems like Noloop took this question to as many forums as possible, created some chaos out of it, but overall for the most part, there is much agreement, and even some progress (we seem to be agreeing on sourcing at the historicity article's talk page, and working on rephrasing the disputed sentence from the lead), but apparently Noloop isn't satisfied and wants to find another forum to try and bypass the majority of editors who are saying "yeah, they are very few scholars who don't accept a historical Jesus, and we have sources X, Y, Z, etc to back it up and WP:RS does not have a religious litmus test". -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. The fact that these issues with the religious beliefs of cited sources keeps coming up on talk pages and noticeboards reflects the need for mediation by disinterested experienced Wikipedia editors who can sort through the issues and make a determination that all sides can, if not agree to, at least acknowledge is in compliance with Wikipedia policies regarding proper sourcing of statements in articles. I think mediation is in the best interest of the project, so that hopefully we can resolve this issue and have a definitive decision to point to the next time it comes up. Otherwise it will just keep coming up over and over and over again. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. It would have been nice to have been notified that I was part of this mediation request before the mediation was declared void. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dittobori - not all of us live on bloody Wikipedia you know!!Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. I thought the notification was automatic - I received it yesterday, and acted upon it. It doesn't matter anyway, because at least two of the named parties did not wish to participate, so mediation would not have been possible unless those named had been willing to participate. So, if you had been willing to participate, you couldn't - and if you were unwilling, you would not have had to. - MishMich - Talk - 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Committee, AGK 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Tirumala Venkateswara Temple (talk)
Submitted	29 Jun 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Gandharva95 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Rohinikumart (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Tirumala_Venkateswara_Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Talk page of the user reported to be violating the policy: User_talk:Rohinikumart Talk page of the article: Talk:Tirumala_Venkateswara_Temple#Citations_in_.22Ancient_History.22_section

Primary issues

• Issue 1: The user repeatedly insists on removing genuine authenticated content, where full reference to the source is provided. This is about the ancient Hindu temple that carries the same name as the title of the article. An ancient, authenticated Tamil literary work Silappatikaram mentions this temple with several details of the deity. That this work, dating to the first few centuries CE, refers to the temple in very clear terms, is also supported by peer-reviewed research of historians. See: [3]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Gandharva95 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified. AGK 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Not all parties responded to request for mediation. For the Committee, AGK 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	ShoMMA (talk)
Submitted	25 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Sportslogos (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Justinsane15 (talk · contribs)
3. Udar55 (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• ShoMMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

• ShoMMA page was edited by me, to match the ShoXC page, it's same show but just different name and organization. Pages should be the same.
• The page is easier to read the tables.
• The shows technically do not include numbers in the name for all the shows. The challengers show is also omitted from Strikeforce event chronologically.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• ShoMMA is in accordance with results page issues as deemed universal by Wikipedia's WikiProject Mixed martial arts. This group has formatted over 1,300 pages and clearly has been using the same template for MMA results. In order to remain consistent, the ShoMMA page should remain as is.
• The parties correcting Sportslogo's edits have been handling MMA results for years. As far as I can tell, this is Sportslogo's first attempt at editing a MMA results page and, obviously, it should defer to the editors who are familiar with the format and have a long history with such results.

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Sportslogo (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Parties notified. AGK 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Not all parties responded to mediation request. For the Committee, AGK 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	King Fernidad Frederick (talk)
Submitted	03 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Wikigov (talk · contribs), filing party

Articles concerned in this dispute

• King Fernidad Frederick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Primary issues

• Unfit for Uncyclopedia and complete refusal by Wikipedia to provide full detail decision for the denial of 'King Fernidad Frederick' article on a notable persons.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Wikigov (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. No list of editors involved in the dispute has been supplied. Wikigov, you are free to file a new request that includes all the required information. Please see the guide to RFM if you need assistance, or contact me or another committee mediator. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Gun laws in the United States (by state) (talk)
Submitted	29 May 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. SeanNovack (talk · contribs), filing party
2. JPMcGrath (talk · contribs)
3. Mudwater (talk · contribs)
4. SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs)
5. Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
6. Hoplophile (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Gun laws in the United States (by state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Extensive talk page discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#2009_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard
• Request for NPOV
• Request for neutral third party input from the NPOV noticeboard.[4] Response received from NPOV noticeboard was: "I think the map is a useful addition to the article." "For me that indicates sufficient neutrality." "To me this looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT."

Primary issues

• Whether or not a map produced by an advocacy group (the Brady Campaign) is appropriate in an encyclopedic listing of Gun Law in the United States.
• Is said map (or conversely, one produced by the NRA) simply advertising for the advocacy group and therefore in violation of WP:SOAP
• Are the criteria listed to describe various gun laws inherently biased.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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. Rapier (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. — JPMcGrath (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Hoplophile (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

• Users all notified. AGK 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Extending the seven-day window by a few days. I've prodded the two parties who haven't yet signed to see where they stand on this request. AGK 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pending progression of the request for comments, this request is on hold. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 10:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We will revisit this request in the coming seven days. In the interim, comment on whether mediation is still necessary would be welcome. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article talk page, it's clear that a significant number of editors agree, after much discussion, that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the Neutral Point Of View policy, and so should not be added to the article. The main discussions about this are in these talk page sections or subsections:

• Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
• Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady and other maps
• Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
• Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued

The discussion about this started on March 4, almost five months ago. The last time that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map was added to the article, and then removed again, was July 16, two weeks ago. So, is mediation still necessary? Right now, I don't know. If the map stays off the article, then no. But if anyone puts the map back into the article, then mediation would be appropriate, in my opinion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — JPMcGrath (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Mediation at this point does not appear to be necessary. For the Committee, AGK 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid my terse reply was not clear. I answered "yes" to Mudwater's question, "is mediation still necessary?"

Mudwater has been advocating the removal of a map from the Gun laws in the United States (by state) page, based on his assertion that it violates ]]WP:NPOV]], although he refuses to point to any language in that policy that it violates, not will he comment on the language in that policy that explicitly says it should not be removed.

Recently, and RFC was conducted and the result was "There is no consensus to remove the maps from the page". Mudwater's response was to remove the maps from the page and to repeatedly revert their re-insertion. Given that, I found it quite stunning that he seems to think that the issue might be resolved,

There is some honest, substantive discussion going on on the talk page, so I will leave this for now. I expect we will be filing another Request for Mediation in the future.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	English Defence League (talk)
Submitted	27 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. awmyth (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Jarkeld (talk · contribs),
3. Snowded (talk · contribs),
4. _meco (talk · contribs),
5. BritishWatcher (talk · contribs),
6. Slatersteven (talk · contribs),
7. Off2riorob (talk · contribs),
8. cptnono (talk · contribs),
9. TFOWR (talk · contribs),
10. FormerIP (talk · contribs)
11. tmorton166 (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#.22new_non-political_social_movement.22.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#POV_tag
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#WP:NPOVN
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#POV_twaddle
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#Please_can_we_get_some_structure_here
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Defence_League#How_about

Primary issues

• Accuracy of content
• Reliability of Sources
• Neutrality of editors

• The Mediation Committee does not deal with editor conduct and so this issue could not be dealt with in mediation. AGK 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Longstanding dispute over inclusion of content as documented on the entire Discussion page.
• Unexplained hostility and refusal to accept a document published by the UK Parliament as a reliable source.

• The Mediation Committee does not deal with editor conduct and so the stricken section of this issue could not be dealt with in mediation. AGK 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Article is an attack written and protected by users that oppose the group as recorded by Off2riorob (talk · contribs)
• Persistent bias and hostility to change as recorded by cptnono (talk · contribs)

• The Mediation Committee does not deal with editor conduct and so this issue could not be dealt with in mediation. AGK 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

• Please note: The instructions above clearly states Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request. Awmyth (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed.) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comment removed. Please remain civil when interacting with other editors. AGK 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The filing party is now on a wikibreak of uncertain duration. --FormerIP (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The previous round of signatures did not make it clear who would consent to mediation proceeding and who would not. All parties who wish to participate are asked to sign below with no remark except "Agree." All who do not wish to participate are asked to sign with only "Disagree." Comments should be made on the talk page (or, if brief and in response to a question or comment posed below, underneath the relevant bullet point). For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm sure other editors can speak for themselves, but I believe I can say with confidence, based on discussions not on this page, that all parties agreed to the meditation. User:Verbal was not keen but agreed that meditation could go ahead without him (he has just become a father so does not have time). The filing party User:Awmyth will probably not participate, since he is taking a wikibreak due to personal circumstances. At present, the talkpage has calmed down somewhat IMO. I am not sure if mediation should go ahead in the absence of the filing party, but would be willing to participate if it does. Not sure if these comments are helpful or not, but hope that they are. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. AgreeSlatersteven (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree (but see TP for comments) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified. AGK 14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Um, okay. As it stands this case is far too unwieldy (both in terms of suggested scope and of breadth of party participation). We need to first identify more specific problems with the article content so as to refine the scope, and to second identify whether all the parties listed here are involved in the dispute (and if so, to what degree). Should this request be accepted (an aspect of this request on which I make no comment at this point, not yet having all the facts on hand), it may become necessary to deal with multiple issues in turn and also to divide the parties into groups in accordance with their stances on each issue and thence deal only with one party (a designated spokesperson) from each group. Comment on all these issues is most welcome, preferably on the case talk page. AGK 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. The opinion of those other members of the Committee who opined on this request on the mailing list has been that this dispute would not benefit from mediation; I am in concurrence with them. For the Committee, AGK 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Windows 7 (talk)
Submitted	01 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. WhyteHorse1413 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Netanel_h (talk · contribs)
3. Turbolinux999 (talk · contribs)
4. DeStilaDo (talk · contribs)
5. GB_fan (talk · contribs)
6. GrandDrake (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Windows 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Please see discuss page, we have attempted everything Talk:Windows_7 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Windows_7|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Primary issues

• Add Criticism Section
• Change article layout
• Tendentious editing by GB_fan and GrandDrake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whytehorse1413 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. I have a few issues with the request though with the main one being that the users Netanel_h and DeStilaDo have not been involved in the dispute and neither user has edited the Windows 7 article or talk page since last year. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Also have an issue, whytehorse has not tried to discuss. They have not discussed the objections raised on the talk page about the sourcing of the criticism section. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 06:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree, though I am confused as to my inclusion in this. Turbolinux999 (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Netanel h (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Awaiting party response from User:DeStilaDo before deciding on the issue of whether mediation is necessary or not (on which I see there has been preliminary discussion above). AGK 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Not all parties responded to the request for mediation. For the Committee, AGK 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	World War II (overview article) (talk)
Submitted	21 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Communicat (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Nick-D (talk · contribs)
3. Arnoutf (talk · contribs)
4. Paul Siebert (talk · contribs)
5. White Shadows (talk · contribs)
6. Moxy (talk · contribs)
7. Hohum (talk · contribs)
8. Habap (talk · contribs)
9. Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Archived Discussion Anti-communist prejudice
• Archived discussion comment German surrender
• Article talk page, multiple interrelated threads commencing with topic "Link to www.truth-hertz.net" posted at 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC), through "WW2 origins of Cold War" and "Flawed overview", and "Editing dispute" and "Lead Problems" and "Communist-led resistance", and various other relevant threads either archived or not, at this time of posting. Communicat (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary issues

• POV bias through omission. Alternative / opposing / controversial non-Western majority and Western revisionist / significant-minority positions which deviate from conservative mainstream paradigm are not incorporated in article. Hence article not NPOV.
• Double standards in source evaluation. One allegedly dubious, revisionist source/link subjected to intensive scrutiny and rigorous vetting, whereas at least 27 other identifiable, non-revisionist, dubious sources are permitted, perhaps even encouraged. This Mediation request does not concern merits or demerits of allegedly dubious revisionist source as referred to, but concerns specificially the issue of double-standards (i.e. POV bias) in vetting and acceptance of sources. Communicat (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Communicat (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. --Habap (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree This dispute is limited to Communicat (talk · contribs) seeking to push their personal views in the article. As their proposed changes have, with some minor exeptions, received no support during lengthy discussions on the article's talk page this issue does not require mediation as a clear consensus against the proposed changes currently exists. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree although the current presentation of the dispute is completely from the minority POV of Communicat, and coming to a shared POV on these issues should be the focus of the mediation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Disagree. The "27 other dubious sources" have not been significantly discussed by Communicat, in order for them to be rigorously vetted. Regarding POV bias, the user has not suggested concrete edits supported by reliable sources, but has made many complaints and accusations. (Hohum ^@) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. comment - i have dis-engaged long ago as i simply do not understand what Communicat is saying half the time.. I just dont know what he wants.Moxy (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Not all parties agree to mediation. For the Committee, AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual comment to the parties, I would express my disappointment at what seems to be the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article. Whether this is because a single user really is as disruptive as is alleged, or because many of the parties are simply slinging mud at the other, I do not know, but it saddens me to know that there are articles with regular contributors who are either so devoid of a collegial outlook or who have not yet reported such a disruptive user for administrative attention. AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Playa Mayabeque (talk)
Submitted	21 Jul 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)
2. Rogeliowar (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Playa Mayabeque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:Playa_Mayabeque
• User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo#Reference:_Mayabeque_Beach
• User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo#Sobre_Playa_Mayabeque

Primary issues

• Issue 1
• Issue 2

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Rogeliowar (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What dispute? Rogeliowar removed the opening paragraph, I replaced it and rewrote it to suit the new text. End of story. I think this is just a matter of intra-lingual miscommunication.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified of request. AGK 23:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Kintetsubuffalo (Chris), please indicate whether you would be willing to participate in mediation or not. Rogeliowar, please indicate whether you think mediation of this dispute is necessary, in light of Kintetsubuffalo's remarks. AGK 00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Parties notified that I have presented the above questions. Deadline for garnering of party agreement suspended whilst we work through the above issues (and specifically, identify whether mediation is still necessary). For the Committee, AGK 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the mediation is for. There is no issue between us that I am aware of. I think it is a simple miscommunication. I am happy to have him contribute to the article, it's nice to have someone on the ground there. The issues may arise from his using a machine translator to get my comments back into Spanish, and my Spanish only being good enough to ask for the bathroom and back out of a barfight gracefully. I asked User:Callelinea to try and see what the problem is, as he is fluent in both languages. He is now also working on the article. My only original problem was the removal of the lead paragraph, and that's fixed.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, first with "User: Kintetsubuffalo" and followed with the Mediation Committee. Due to language problems we did not understand initially User: Kintetsubuffalo and I, after I was receptive to the explanation that I gave on the use of automatic translators and make corrections to my translation helped us and contributed to a good understanding . A day earlier, I had made the request for mediation and does not request the cancellation thereof. I ask, is withdrawn, the mediation on the article "Playa Mayabeque" I reiterate is a User: Kintetsubuffalo I apologize for what happened. --Rogeliowar (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject, as mediation appears unnecessary. For the Committee, AGK 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (talk)
Submitted	17 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. xxpreaditorxx (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs)
3. Beetstra (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bovineboy2008#Reliable_Sources

Primary issues

• Whether www.media-cows.com is a reliable source or not.
• Did not address my point about blogs specifically that Destructoid, a blog, is considered reliable.
• A review is an opinion, so a person cannot be an authority on opinion.
• There is a page protection currently that does not allow review site to be added to the reception section.
• Reception section should not be devoted to the largest gaming sites for that does not reflect the full reception of the game.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Xxpreaditorxx (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Not all parties responded to request. For the Committee, AGK 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Pages	User talk:Fastily (talk)
Submitted	04 Sep 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. WOS2014 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Fastily (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• User_talk:Fastily#WOS2014 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Fastily#WOS2014|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

• Rude Comments ("I could care less." "In the unlikely event that..." "lol, go anywhere you want.")
• Deletion without reason

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. WOS2014 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Formal mediation is suitable only for disputes relating to article content. Grievances relating to the conduct of another user or administrator should be directed through the proper channels, starting with reasoned, open-minded dialogue with the user in question, and progressing to requests for comment, administrators' noticeboard complaints, and ultimately arbitration requests. For the Committee, AGK 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Ugg boots (talk)
Submitted	15 Sep 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Gnangarra (talk · contribs)
3. Bilby (talk · contribs)
4. Hoary (talk · contribs)
5. Factchk (talk · contribs)
6. Donama (talk · contribs)
7. Daveosaurus (talk · contribs)
8. Mandurahmike (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Ugg boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UGG Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deckers Outdoor Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Third opinion from K10wnsta (talk · contribs) here.
• Request for Comment was started here.

Primary issues

• Does the Ugg boots article favor one nationality over another?
• Does the Ugg boots article favor one manufacturer over another?
• Should material concerning the trademark disputes and the counterfeiting of UGG brand boots be removed to Deckers Outdoor Corporation or UGG Australia?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Does the Ugg boots article push a commercial point of view at the expense of encyclopaedic tone?
• is the Ugg boot article about the generic boot style or the Deckers product?
• are court documents primary or secondary sources, are they independent as defined by WP:RS?
  • does using them constitute WP:OR?
  • can the survey of 400 people tabled as evidence in California court case be used to represent a world wide view?
• What is a counterfeit Ugg boot?
• what is undue WP:WEIGHT in the article?
• In an event where a colloquial term is already well known as a generic term in one country, but is later trademarked in another country where that colloquial term is either not well known or not known at all, does WP:PT still apply to the pre-existing generic usage of the term?

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Bilby (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Hoary (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Donama (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Gnangarra 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Mandurahmike (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. (Hapamama (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. This is a relatively new dispute, so please direct it for now to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. For the Committee, AGK 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	United States military casualties of war (talk)
Submitted	31 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. ShanYang (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Arthur Smart (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• United States military casualties of war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Informal discussion on subject talk page. Poll taken of editors involved.

Primary issues

• Revert warring carried out by Art Smart in regards to an edit that is not relevent to the article.
• Inclusion of a source that does not meet with Wikipedia Standards.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• See filing party's frivolous incident report on this issue for more details.
• With the article name change from United States casualties of war to United States military casualties of war (i.e., adding the word military), no dispute still exists.
• Filing party now threatens to undo all his prior contributions to the article previously in dispute. His prior contributions are now part of the article, and as such, belong to Wikipedia and the public, not him. For him now to undo all his prior contributions en-masse, without regard to merit, would constitute vandalism.

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. ShanYang (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. ShanYang ShanYang (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I always agree to mediation, although I see no dispute still remaining. This issue is now moot due to the article name change. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject. Please file a mediation cabal request and seek mediation through that forum. As this is a relatively low-level dispute, formal mediation is unwarranted at this point. If the MedCab does not resolve things, a new request should then be filed. For the Committee, AGK 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Survivor registry (talk)
Submitted	09 Nov 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Editforaccuracy (talk · contribs), filing party
2. ArthurRubin (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• {{all articles involving the al Quaeda terrorist attacks in the northeast United States on September 11, 2001}}

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

The other user Arthur Rubin refuses to allow more specific information to be included in the articles concerned in this dispute. He is blocking - use of the full date of the terrorist attack even in situations when the date is not being quoted or part of a proper name. - description of the perpetrator of the attack - location of the attack

• Issue 2

He has sent me letters saying that my insertion of these facts in articles on this topic are inappropriate even though some of them (the full date and perpetrator) are mentioned in the main article on the topic: "The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001." I cannot reason with a person who edits out facts written with proper grammar from a supposed encyclopedia article because of that person's opinions on style or other opinions. 9/11 is shorthand. It is not the proper name for that date in time nor is it a proper name for the terrorist attack in question. The thousands of other terrorist attacks that have occurred do not go by "month/date" only on Wikipedia articles unless they are dates used in spoken or written quotes. This terrorist attack happened 9 years ago in one part of the world. It is not known as "9/11" to millions of English-speaking people around the world any more than "4/19" is known as the date in of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Editforaccuracy

I've indef blocked this user; he's been edit warring all day solely to add who committed 9/11 and where in the country it happened to multiple articles, then when he hit 3RR with his IP he made an account. First of all, someone making an account named "Editforaccuracy" rarely is. (Our User:Neutrality is the only user who can get away with such a name :P) Second of all, he came to RFM without even attempting to engage Arthur Rubin - whose reverts were valid - in conversation. This person clearly has no interest in actually improving the pedia. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Reject per Golbez's note. For the Committee, AGK 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Transcendental Meditation (talk) lead paragraph only
Submitted	21 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), filing party
2. TimidGuy (talk · contribs) (topic banned until October 9[6])
3. Jmh649 (talk · contribs)
4. Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs)
5. Will Beback (talk · contribs)

• Question for the mediator: Is Timid Guy able to comment here or on the TM article discussion page concerning this issue. Not sure of the situation.

• NB: Answered below. AGK 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Long, circular, and repetitive discussions directly relating to the lead: [[[Talk:Transcendental Meditation#NPOV violation of lead]]
• Discussion that may indirectly relate to the lead: Talk:Transcendental Meditation#The 700 studies
• RfC (that is not yet closed): Talk:Transcendental Meditation#RfC: How to best summarize the scientific literature on TM

Primary issues:

• Does the research section of the lead in the Transcendental Meditation article per WP: LEAD, ("The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article") adequately, fairly and neutrally summarize the content on the research in the article itself?

  Lead as it currently stands:

  Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.^[1][2][3][4] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.^[5][6][3] Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.^[7][8]

{{collapse top|Additional commentary on this issue}}

Simply put: Some editors feel the content on the research in place now in the lead is appropriate. Others feel what is in place now does not fairly, adequately, or neutrally summarize what is in the article (eg at Transcendental Meditation#Research). Editors on both sides feel the research is not being represented accurately. Some help would be useful in deciding how to best write or rewrite the lead so that it complies with the guideline. {{collapse bottom}}

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• To address the WP:LEAD issue, we would need help to get a shared understanding of core policy, the heart of the matter:

{{collapse top|Additional commentary on this issue}}

Can a declared connection (a funding or an affiliation) between a large corporation and the authors of a study or meta-analysis, which is published in a peer-reviewed journal, be used to reduce its prominence in the article? The question here is not whether we can in addition present different reliable sources that discuss whether or not the connection is an important source of bias. However, included in the question, is whether such a discussion can be used to replace a fair and unbiased presentation of the study or meta-analysis?

Can the content of a meta-analysis or study, which is published in a peer-reviewed journal, e.g. the quality assessment criteria that a meta-analysis uses, be used to reduce its prominence in the article? {{collapse bottom}}

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. olive (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree - though I'll mostly stay on the sidelines of the discussion. I'll endorse whatever the rest agree to.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree, but see the (first) additional issue above. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree TimidGuy (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Accept. Formal mediation could help this dispute. For the Committee, AGK 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My opinion as an administrator is that TimidGuy would not be permitted to participate in this mediation or in related discussions, as his contributions would have a very direct impact on the content of the TM article (probably akin to the impact of his participation on the talk page proper). AGK 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On hold, pending closure of the currently open RFC. AGK 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Martuni (town) (talk)
Submitted	30 Aug 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Ліонкінг (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Tuscumbia (talk · contribs),
3. Golbez (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Martuni (town) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
• Martakert (town) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khojavend_(town)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#User:NovaSkola

Primary issues

• Issue 1 - There were a huge discussion about the title of the article on it's talk page. The discussion started Brandmeister, but he is retired now and he has made only 1 edit there. Second user is Tuscumbia - he wanted to name the article as Khojavend. Third user is Golbez, he is a neutral party who wanted to help, but when Tuscumbia asked his decision, he said that he has opinion. Fourth user is NovaSkola. Don't taking part in the discussion User:NovaSkola changed the name from Martuni to the Khojavend and after it he make a request to the administrators for protection of the name of the article. Administrator SlimVirgin protected the name of the article on the version of NovaSkola. Then there were no discussion from the users who represents Azerbaijan: User:Tuscumbia, User:NovaSkola and User:Brandmeister as they agreed that it is normal behavior of user NovaSkola. In my request that there are no consensus, administrator SlimVirgin wrote answer in the talk page (end of the page). Fifth user is Marshal Bagramyan. He just reverted unsanstioned move of NovaSkola, but then NovaSkola make a request for protection of the title. So after that second party - Tuscumbia, NovaSkola and Brandmeister decided that it is normal situation and they stopped the discussion after that. The same think NovaSkola have done with the other conflict article. He moved the name of the article Martakert (town) and after that make a request for protection of the title, but I've seen it and stopped him, mentioning about it in the RfPP. After some period of time he repeated the action. He moved the title and then make a request for protection of the title on his version. Administrator TFOWR accepted request. Also Tuscumbia and NovaSkola revert majority of my edit's, so I'm sure that in this situation we need mediator. I'll be very thankfull if someone agree to mediate with the articles Martuni (town) and Martakert (town).

Only facts:

- The city is under the full control of Nagorno Karabakh Republic which name the city as Martuni

- Before the war the name of the city was Martuni and it was never Khojavend. Khojavend was a nearby village which was populated by Azeris.

- The population of the city before and after the war was consisted by Armenians who name the city as Martuni. There were no huge Azeri population anytime in the city, but there was a small Azeri village Khojavend in honor to which Azerbaijani governments renamed city. Local population have never used this name.

- According to the legislation of the de-facto independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic, the name of the city is Martuni. According to the legislation of Azerbaijan which does not control the city and has never controlled it the name of the city is Khojavend.

- The city during the collapse of the USSR was under the control of the NKR self-defenced forces and Azerbaijan have not controlled it. In the USSR Martuni was a part of Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast of Azerbaijan SSR. Before the USSR Martuni was a part of the Russian Empire.

For the Martakert there are the same issues as for Martuni but there were no Azeri village, the name Agdere is unknown, but during the war Azeri forces controlled the city from 04/07/1992 to 27/06/1993. Other issues are similar as for Martuni.

• Issue 2 - I've got a conflict with the actions of user NovaSkola which I published here. The first problem is solved while two others are not.

(Remarks redacted.) AGK 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Ліонкінг (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. God help anyone who gets involved in the AA fight. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified. AGK 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this request is accepted, the scope will be strictly limited to the disagreements relating to this article, and to the named article. An RfM on the wider AA topic area would be doomed from the outset, I suspect. AGK 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to filing party: Please rewrite the 'issues to be mediated' section so that it succinctly summarises the points of article content over which there is disagreement. Note that as part of this, slurs on the conduct of other editors should be omitted: we are interested only in the actual content of the article. For the Committee, AGK 23:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. One (User:Tuscumbia) of the three parties is unable to participate in this case for another month, pending the expiration of a topic ban. Please re-file this request when his topic ban has expired—as clearly mediation cannot proceed in the interim. For the Committee, AGK 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for formal mediation
Article	Linda McMahon (talk)
Submitted	02 Sep 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Rejected
Notes	None
For internal use: Delete case page

Involved users

1. Screwball23 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. FellGleaming (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Linda McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.

Primary issues

• Issue 1 - deletion of 1992 ring boy trial
• Issue 2 - deletion of 1993 steroid trial
• Issue 3 - deletion of tip-off memo
• Issue 4 - the list goes on...

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. Screwball23 talk 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm a bit confused by this. I currently have an RfE open for Screwball's personal attacks and edit warring on this article. I myself have stopped editing that article temporarily as a result of his actions. However, there are several other editors involved who have conflicted with Screwball here; user Collect in particular is the one who is most closely involved. Can he be added to this request? Fell Gleaming^talk 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Note: Parties notified. AGK 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not aware that there were unresolved complaints relating to the filing party's conduct. When that complaint is resolved at the appropriate forum, and if there remain unresolved content issues, please file a new RfM. Reject. For the Committee, AGK 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]