The matter has been closed for failure of the parties to show good faith effort at mediation. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Backburner001 (talk · contribs)
• RadioKirk (talk · contribs)
• JackO'Lantern (talk · contribs)
• Rossrs (talk · contribs)
• Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs)
• Extraordinary_Machine (talk · contribs)
• Maclean25 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Lindsay Lohan [1]

User talk pages:

• User:Backburner001 [2]
• User:RadioKirk [3]
• User:JackO'Lantern [4]
• User:Rossrs [5]
• User:Buchanan-Hermit [6]
• User:Extraordinary_Machine [7]
• User:Maclean25 [8]

• WP:RFC/ART [9]

• Is a reference to Punk'd in Lindsay Lohan relevant?

• Possible precedent: Does the Wikipedia policy outlined in Articles/Media/etc. for Deletion—that, if no consensus, default is to keep—extend to portions of articles ?

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

• Agree. Backburner001
• Agree. Buchanan-Hermit
• Agree. RadioKirk talk to me 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Rossrs 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. maclean25 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree JackO'Lantern 09:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Extraordinary Machine 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept: Mediator will be assigned; there is currently a delay, so please be patient.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Essjay:

Does the RfM policy require that articles accepted for mediation not be edited? Or does this only apply to the text posted to the RfM pages? I am currently involved in a dispute with RadioKirk and I made edits to the article involved in the dispute after my RfM was accepted. I did this under the impression that article editing was acceptable and that editing the request itself was not. I did not intend to violate RfM policy and would like to know if I unintentionally did so (as I fear that RadioKirk may be attempting to use scare tactics in an effort to harass me about the issue). Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- backburner001 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may continue to edit articles involved in mediation while the mediation is ongoing; if it were otherwise, the article would be protected. It would not be out of the question for a condition of the mediation to be that both editors stop editing it, but it is not required. Mediation is a cooperative effort, and does not involve complex procedure; it is, for the most part, what the editors agree to in consultation with the mediator. Either editor may withdraw at any point, and may continue to edit the article while the mediation is ongoing; of course, continuing the actions that led to the mediation may make mediation less successful, but is not a violation of any policy.

It is not the responsibility of any party to a mediation to quote mediation policy to the others; there is no place for wikilawyering in mediation. If there are issues, it should be brought to the attention of the mediator, who will take the necessary action. If a mediator has not yet be assigned, it should be brought to my attention, and I will handle it.

Since you didn't mention the specific case, I don't know whether a mediator has been assigned or not; if one has, please bring this to the attention of the mediator, if not, let me know, and I will look into the matter. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. The case involves the Punk'd reference in the Lindsay Lohan article. An editor has not yet been assigned. I discovered after posting my above comment that RadioKirk commented on this matter on Voice_of_All's talk page and stated the supposed restriction of editing articles under mediation was not a written rule. However, on my talk page, RadioKirk insisted that such rule exists and refused to provide a link to such a rule when I asked him. I find this kind of behavior deceptive and harassing and I'm having difficulty resolving the content dispute as a result of it. I would still like to make an attempt to have the dispute mediated, but behavior like this makes such mediation a very difficult task. If you could look into this matter and offer advice on how to proceed from here, I would be very appreciative. -- backburner001 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stated "insistence" is incorrect. On Talk:Lindsay Lohan (not on User_talk:backburner001, by the way), I stated, "The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process." Why not? Because it is vandalism and I will revert it. The answer to the unanswered question should be obvious: "You requested a mediator, now respect all six editors who signed an agreement to mediate (not counting the user who, indicentally, was the bringer of the RfM) and back off and let the mediation proceed."

Notice also that the user found and invoked template:Exclusion-Section—a convenient excuse to impose the stated intention that "this reference must be removed until it suits me." Upon reversion of the vandalism, the template was restored, this time with the data intact, probably to avert WP:3RR. I have since created template:Inclusion-Section in an effort to insure the subject of the RfM remains intact (as it was at the time the RfM was filed) and within the purview of the mediator.

Finally, there can be no one-sided harassment if indeed this is a two-sided edit war (I maintain that the user's "war" is of its own making and the actual "harassment" is to Lindsay Lohan specifically and to Wikipedia in general). This user will find consequences to its actions—as I will mine—and no amount of spin-doctoring will stop them. RadioKirk talk to me 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "preserve" anything, and certainly no need to edit war over doing so. Mediators are smart enough to look in the history of the article, we don't need the parties to cause more conflict in the name of assisting us.

All this brings me to an interesting conclusion: The behavior of the parties does not represent that of parties interested in working together to come to a collaborative solution. Edit warring, characterizing other's edits as vandalism, and making hostile postures towards other parties is not the way to enter into a mediation; rather, it is the precursor to a long and nasty arbitration that leaves all involved far less satisfied than they would have been if they had simply made an effort to get along. The mediation is closed for lack of good faith on the part of the parties, and referred to arbitraion to consider the matters of harassment, edit warring, and vandalism. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Andres C. (talk · contribs)
• Messhermit (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute [10]

User talk pages:

• User:Messhermit[11]
• User:Andres C.[12]

• Repeated attempts to talk and come to a satisfactory agreement with user:Messhermit both in his Talk Page and in the article very long Talk Page.
• [Wikiquette alert]
• [Request for help from the Mediation Cabal]. Nevertheless, I recognize that this subject demands a stronger and more formal approach, which I will explain to the Mediation Cabal.
• [Request for Full Protection of article until this issue is resolved], which has been accepted.

• Neutrality and accuracy of the information posted in the article.
• Should the article History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute be subjected to massive reverting on the grounds that another editor is a POV-pusher?
• Should the credibility of an editor be put openly in doubt because his bibliographical sources have no links to internet pages but to books?
• Should editors involve themselves in recruiting other Wikipedians from the same nationality in order to get rid of information added by editors from another country?

• 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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

• Agree Andres C. 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree
• Do not agree Messhermit 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DrPickle (talk · contribs)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs)
• Str1977 (talk · contribs)
• Musical Linguist (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Vicarius Filii Dei

User talk pages:

• DrPickle
• Jtdirl
• Str1977
• Musical Linguist

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

• Should both points of view be fairly stated in this article? (The following questions elaborate on this one.) Is it appropriate to attempt to refute the opposing view's evidence in the section(s) permitted to contain that evidence, when the rest of the article is already devoted to refutation?
• Should the Donation of Constantine only be described as a "forged" document when it was considered genuine for centuries, was used by popes, and was part of collections of Canon Law? Or, should the reader be informed of how official the Donation was once considered to be, since the opposing view is based in part on that idea?
• Should the entire question be reduced to whether the title appeared on tiaras or miters, when even if it never appeared there, the fact of its use by Catholics and Catholic documents is considered evidence that that title is the name referred to in Rev. 13:18? In other words, the opposing view has never maintained, to my knowledge, that it had to appear upon the tiara or miter in order for their interpretation to be correct.
• Is it permissible on Wikipedia to list as one of the four "sources" of evidence that a Protestant woman in 1832 visited Rome and saw a tiara with the disputed title when no such source has been provided that says such? To the contrary, the one source we do have from 1832 says that a gentleman saw the disputed title on a miter, not a tiara, at some unknown date.
• Can another of the four "sources" be said to refer to an 1845 mass when that very source says nothing about a mass? Can we assume that "service" means "mass" when we know from authentic newspaper accounts that there was an entirely different sort of Easter service at which the pope wore a tiara?
• When other sources exist, can they be listed too, or must the list be confined to just the four?
• Can it be rightfully said that the Catholic Church dismisses the claim that Vicarius Filii Dei is a title of the pope when no official document has been provided that says so? If the chief argument by apologists is that Vicarius Filii Dei has not been found in unforged, official documents issued by the pope, then, in maintaining a NPOV, would not the same standard have to apply to alleged RCC dismissals, namely, that before the article can claim such a dismissal, some official pronouncement must be cited to that effect?
• Is it appropriate to claim that the priest who wrote the 1914 and/or 1915 articles that claimed that the disputed title appeared on the miter, later said he made a mistake, when no verification has yet been provided to this effect?
• Is it appropriate to state that the journal in question disowned the 1914 and/or 1915 articles in 1917 and 1941 when it never really did, when it never said that there was no such title on the miter?
• Can it be stated emphatically that the words at a coronation of a pope never contained the title in question when no evidence has been provided to this effect, and no authoritative source has been cited?
• In short, is it permissible on Wikipedia to push one POV with unverifiable or disproven points, claims, and sources, rather than just lay out the facts as they exist that support both sides, and let the reader decide for himself?

• 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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

• Agree. --DrPickle 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (I assume that the mediation committee will be composed of those who can look at the issues in a fair, unbiased, and objective manner.)[reply]
• Do not agree. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Failure of all parties to agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcosantezana (talk · contribs)
• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Natural selection: [13]

User talk pages:

• User:Marcosantezana: [14]
• User:KimvdLinde:[15]

• WP:RFC [16]
• Extended discussions at the talk page, with repeated request to join the discussions to find consensus.
• Limited 'discussion' at user talk pages.
• WP:AN [17] under Advise needed.

• General outline of the article.

• None

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

• Agree. KimvdLinde 08:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ~~~~
• Do not agree. ~~~~

Marcosantezana (talk · contribs) has posted this [18] at Talk:Natural selection.

• Reject: It's been more than seven days, and the other parties have not commented. Bring it back if you can establish an agreement to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphen5 (talk · contribs)
• TSP (talk · contribs)
• Lima (talk · contribs)
• KHM03 (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Pollinator (talk · contribs)
• Csernica (talk · contribs)
• Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs)
• Ihcoyc (talk · contribs)
• DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs)
• WikiCats (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

[19]

User talk pages:

[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

• Obviously, extensive debate on the article talk page
• Invited discussion via Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions#Religious Organizations
• WP:RFC: [30]
• Negotiation by various editors' talk pages: mine, TSP's, KHM03's, and JohnnyBGood's

• Should Roman Catholic Church be moved to Catholic Church?

• 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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

• Agree. Hyphen5 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Am in favour of anything that would bring peace from one person's constant pushing; but the arguments given here convince me that mediation would be a further waste of time.Lima 10:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree; It's one editor's personal crusade, which includes a willingness to violate Wikipedia policy by disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (see post here for evidence). User:Hyphen5 attempted to achieve consensus by taking a vote and lost. KHM03 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, I suppose; in that I have no objection to being involved. I'm not sure that I think it's likely to achieve very much; as has been pointed out on the article's talk page, this seems to have been a perfectly well-conducted vote. I'm happy to take part if anyone thinks it will help, however. TSP 12:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree --WikiCats 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, I guess, though I think this is a waste of time. For at least three years there have been periodic pushes by Roman Catholics to remove the qualifier "Roman" from the articles about the Roman Catholic Church. These proposals have never achieved consensus; now is no different. If a decision that "Roman" stays gives us something with which to lawyer at the next person to propose this, so be it. Smerdis of Tlön 12:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. This is just forum shopping. Hyphen5 has tried and failed to persuade others, he seems to be spreading the net further in an attempt to find somebody who will agree with him. The documented fact that at least two churches refer to themselves as the Catholic Church, and that the entire Anglican Communion also refers to "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", and the fact that Roman Catholic Church is completely unambiguous, seem to pass Hyphen5 by. From the Talk posts it seems that Hyphen5 mistakes reading and understanding his argument, and disagreeing with it, for not having read his argument. If mediators decide to take up the case I will of course co-operate, but in my view this has already wasted quite enough time. Consensus for such a move is clearly lacking, Hyphen5's dissent not withstanding. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree, per Guy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs)
• Ynhockey (talk · contribs)
• Zeq (talk · contribs)
• Pecher (talk · contribs)
• Heptor (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMachsom_Watch&diff=42934024&oldid=42923140

User talk pages:

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Discussions on article talk page and requestes on user talk page.

• NPOV policy 1: Should the article 1st paragrpah contain both POVs on the issue of Human Rights (as it has to do with Checkpoints and the broader issues of human rights to both Palestinians and Israelis) ?
• NPOV policy 2: Should the controversy be Described ?
• NPOV policy 3: Are quotes from the oragnization own web site should be a source for Wikipedia article ?

• To be completed

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

• Agree. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Pecher ^Talk 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, not interested in participating. I once restored some information [37] Zero removed[38], but it seems that it is back into the article now, even with better wording. As long as he agrees not to remove information again, I'll skip this one. -- Heptor _talk 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I read the discussion and reconsidered. I agree to participate in mediation (To make it clear: I was originally not interested in the article alltogether, not just the mediation part. After reading the talk page, I now think it is worth while anyway) -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: As with the above mediation, the previous state of the issues section was unacceptable. Issues must be presented in a bulleted list, without commentary or accusations. The section must be completed in the correct format or the request will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the above is no longer relevant - can it be removed and a descision be made ? Thanks. Zeq 07:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• two weeks - what next ? Zeq 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This request is denied. I don't believe that this request is fruitful.

For the Mediation Committee, Ral315.

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• banned user Alberuni (talk · contribs) who helped zero using anon IP 68.214.35.104
• Zeq (talk · contribs)

User Ramallite was involved but not directly since he was actually a fair 3rd party that asked questions about my edits and received answers after which he did not change the article. I assume that if he still have doubts about accuracy we will hear from him.

Article talk pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Sarafand&diff=42952415&oldid=42788702

User talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZero0000&diff=42934322&oldid=42934214

The issue is small and simple. So the steps taken are:

• Review by 3rd party (who asked very good questions about the sources provided)
• Requests (to Zero) that he:

• Avoid reverts and edit wars
• Discuss each of his reverts in talk page of article. ( this is realy a cardinal request, as zero ignore talk too often when he reverts )
• Do not remove relavant sourced content based on judicial process
• Adheer to NPOV policy

• Should the article contain both version about the issue i.e Only the one from the Islamic movment prepective or also to add the fact from the judicial comitee who investigated the issue.

• 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, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

• Agree. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: The previous state of the issues section was unacceptable. Issues must be presented in a bulleted list, without commentary or accusations. The section must be completed in the correct format or the request will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation, having been agreed to by only one party after a two week period, is denied.

For the Mediation Committee, Ral315.

• Alienus (talk · contribs)
• Cookiecaper (talk · contribs)
• Cunado19 (talk · contribs)
• Freedominthought (talk · contribs)
• Hawstom (talk · contribs)
• Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
• Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs)
• Visorstuff (talk · contribs)
• Wadsworth (talk · contribs)
• Wesley (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Joseph Smith, Jr. [39] [40]

User talk pages:

• Alai [41]
• Alienus [42]
• Bcatt [43]
• COGDEN [44]
• Cookiecaper [45]
• Cunado19 [46]
• Freedominthought [47]
• FyzixFighter [48]
• Hawstom [49]
• It's Mormonlicious [50]
• MrWhipple [51]
• Storm Rider [52]
• Swatjester [53]
• TheScurvyEye [54]
• Tijuana Brass [55]
• Trödel [56]
• Trevdna [57]
• Val42 [58]
• Visorstuff [59]
• Wadsworth [60]
• Wesley [61]

• WP:RFC [62]

[63]

• Wikipedia:Third Opinion

[64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

• Can there be any agreement in the disputes between User:Bcatt, User:It's Mormonlicious and User:Freedominthought and LDS/Mormon editors on the page as to what constitutes POV.
• Most edits currently being made are disputed by both sides of the many arguments, and have been for weeks.
• In a biography, what is the difference between significance in events as described by historians (such as being the first presidential candidate assasinated) and " "what is [the biographee] best known for?"
• Should Joseph Smith's form of plural marriage be labeled Polygyny or Polygamy?
• Should a parent-page article (with multiple sub-articles) give a comphrehensive discussion of topics treated elsewhere?
• Should the alligations of Joseph Smith Jr being involved in plural marriage or the protests of his innocence be treated as opinion or historical fact?

• Has User:Visorstuff abused adminstrative privileges as stated by Bcatt and Freedominthought:

[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

• Did Visorstuff misuse his position of trust as an admininstrator by violating Wikipedia policy and selectively applying Wikipedia policy to editors? [79]
• How can NPOV be properly presented in faith-based articles.
• Should faith-based articles take an initial approach from the adherents point of view and then give room for detractors points of views?
• Should Mormon editors be banned from editing Mormon-related articles or should there be a limit on how many Mormons can edit a single Mormon related page? [80]

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

• Agree. Visorstuff 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Tom Haws 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Alienus 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Wesley 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. MrWhipple 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. The Scurvy Eye ^{a note?}I didn't really say much, but my name was here so I felt I should agree in order to allow mediation to take place.(I will help in any way I can) 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, but: I'm not a party to the dispute, rather an ouside editor who's stepped in to help maintain civility. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Like SJ, I don't consider myself a party to any dispute here, but I'm happy to participate in mediation if others would feel that would be helpful. Alai 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree: I have mostly remained out of the dispute, but mediation has been needed for a while. Val42 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't feel I can communicate with bcatt without excessive dramatics or exagerrated interpretations of my comments. Thus I have stopped editing the article for any content for a while. Trödel 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Wadsworth 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Update: I've actually had a little time recently, so I've been touching the text of the article here and there, very carefully NPOV. It was crying out for help. :) I hope someone will let me know if I'm out of line doing so, as this thing is in a mediation process. (I am not one of the main figures in the debates.) Wadsworth 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I hardly think I'm central to anything here, but if my participation is wanted, I'll participate. It's Mormonlicious 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Cuñado - Talk 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Tijuana Brass 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. I've been out of the discussion for about a month, but based on my previous involvement would support mediation. I'll try to catch up on the latest issues. --FyzixFighter 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for committee -- some editors involved in the dispute have taken wikiholiday until this is resovled - should I remove them as an involved party? Inactive Wikipedians involved in the dispute:

• User:Storm Rider has also taken Wikiholiday until the dispute has been resolved [81]

It is correct that I have been on a Wikiholiday until something was done to improve the constant state of dispute on this page; however, as stated above I will be happy to return and participate. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User:COGDEN has a history of ceasing editing when a dispute arises - he is also on Wikiholiday since early on in the dispute (7 Feb.) [82], after User:Bcatt told him "Cogden...how on earth is the term catholic not the same as Catholic [''editors note: the second "Catholic" is referring to the Roman Catholic Church'']? This really makes no sense..." [83]
• User:Trevdna was part of the dispute originally, but has left Wikipedia for personal reasons [84] on 16 March.
• User:FyzixFighter has been inactive since 24 Feb.[85], after listing the pro/con nature of sources on the page. [86] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visorstuff (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I've been on a wikiholidy due to going through comps. I can't edit much but wouldn't mind doing what I can to help here. --FyzixFighter 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC), of the 21 editors invited to mediation, 17 participants have agreed to mediation, two are on Wikiholiday (User:COGDEN and User:Trevdna), and two have not officially responded (User:Bcatt and User:Freedominthought.

• Point of order - I don't know if this is the correct place to put this in this Request for Mediation (RFM), but I think that it would not be appropriate to have eliminated so many of the interested parties as long as this point remains:

Should Mormon editors be banned from editing Mormon-related articles or should there be a limit on how many Mormons can edit a single Mormon related page?

If approved, this would set a bad precedent for any faith-based article directly, and any advocacy-based article (such as abortion) indirectly. Imagine if you will, if the proposal were written thusly: "Should pro-abortion editors be banned from editing abortion-related articles or should there be a limit on how many pro-abortion advocates can edit a single abortion-related page?" Perhaps the last three points on NPOV on faith-based articles should be split in to a separate RFM. Val42 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that 22 involved editors of various religions to decide whather or not Mormon editors should be allowed/banned from Mormon-related pages would be a benefit, not a hassle - especially with almost all agreeing that it needed mediation. I am dissapointed in the decision, but can understand the decisioning process behind it. May re-file at a later point on the dispute between myself and Storm Rider and Bcatt regarding that issue per suggestion below. -Visorstuff 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many parties listed in this request. I've removed twelve who were inactive or never a part of this dispute, leaving ten. Who exactly is most involved in this? —Guanaco 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me that there is little hope of success in such a large mediation, and am inclined to simply direct the parties to a forum like RfC where a large number of parties is not a hinderance. To try to mediate between 22 (or even 10) parties is simply more than what mediation is designed to handle. Case rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Joaquin Murietta (talk · contribs)
• Cactus.Man (talk · contribs) see also Cactus.man (talk · contribs)
• Geo Swan (talk · contribs)
• Randy2063 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Carolyn Wood [87]

User talk pages:

• User:Cactus.Man see also Cactus.man (talk · contribs)[88]
• User:Geo Swan[89]
• User:Randy2063 [90]

• [91] Clean up tagged since December 2005, Tagged for concern ("unecyclopedic") 2006

• [[92]] discussion

• Informal requests [93] [94], [95]

• Issue 1

• Does this article meet the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Issue 2
• Should the article be renamed "The Case Against Carolyn Wood"?
• Issue 3
• Is the article NPOV?

• Additional issue 1
• Frivolous placement of disruptive, inappropriate and inaccurate wiki tags.[96] -- Geo Swan 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional issue 2
• application of wiki tags without a sincere willingness to discuss the concerns raised.[97] -- Geo Swan 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Agree Joaquin Murietta 14:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Geo Swan 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Randy2063 23:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: For lack of agreement by the parties within the time allowed. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]