• Cswrye (talk · contribs)
• Snarkhater (talk · contribs)
• Xploder12 (talk · contribs)
• Walachia (talk · contribs)
• There are also many anonymous editors on both sides of the issue.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Straight Dope [1]

User talk pages:

• User:Cswrye [2]
• User:Snarkhater [3]
• User:Xploder12 [4]
• User:Walachia [5]

• A discussion with a poll was conducted on the article's talk page.

• Should the two external links to the Snark Archive and the SnarkPit be included in the article?

• 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. Cswrye 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree 12.164.250.85
• Agree Snarkhater 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Xploder 04:00, 07 April 2006

• Reject: Failure of the parties to accept within the time allowed.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Dwayne (talk · contribs)
• Jtrost (talk · contribs)
• PKtm (talk · contribs)
• Danflave (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Danielle Rousseau [6]

User talk pages:

• User:Jtrost [7]
• User:PKtm [8]
• User:Danflave [9]

• Discussion by the different contributors on the article's discussion page.
• Reverting of articles to what the contributors beleive to be the best solution.
• User:Joseph Dwayne violating the Three-revert rule and stopping when warned by User:Jtrost.

• Should Danielle Rousseau be an individual article with a summary of the character's biography on Characters of Lost while linking to the independent article by using Main article: Danielle Rousseau?

• 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. —Joseph | Talk 23:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Failure of the parties to accept within the time allowed.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks by Rjensen against user:Citizenposse have been made regarding History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire in accusing Citizenposse of being a radical right wing group or militia member. Citizenposse asserts he has never belonged to any right wing groups or militia groups in his life. He regards these accusations as a violation of the WP:NPA rule.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• user:Rjensen
• user:Citizenposse

Article Talk Pages Talk:History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party: Rjensen slanders Citizenposse in the comments of the article history page of History_of_the_United_States_Republican_PartyCitizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion: Republic of New Hampshire [[10]]: Where Rjensen makes first personal attack against Citizenposse.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Reversion Limit Rule violated by Rjensen Rjensen has now violated the rule against more than three reversions of a page in reverting History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party four times in one day.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen's own [[Talk:User:Rjensen|talk page]]

Citizenposse has attempted discussion, regarding both History of the United States Republican Party and Republic of New Hampshire, but Rjensen gets more belligerent and has gone and violated the revert rule. Rjensen seems to believe his version of history is the orthodox one and refuses to examine and fairly consider all the references Citizenposse has brought forth, on either topic.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen is furthermore attempting to suppress real history through deletion of the Republic of New Hampshire page, instigating his RfD shortly after Citizenposse started editing the page, and repeatedly reverts the edited History of the United States Republican Party, specifically deleting references to the true founding of the party in Exeter, NH on October 12, 1853. Citizenposse has provided ample and diverse references to support the claim, and has put in a request to the New Hampshire Historical Society for further scholarly references. They have said they will be responding on Monday. Citizenposse therefore requests mediation on these issues and that Rjensen's reversions be reversed, and that he halt further reversions until mediation is concluded.Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found that Rjensen has attempted to vandalize the article on Amos Tuck, founder of the Republican Party with unsupported allegations and unreferenced conclusions.Citizenposse 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Rjensen has used HIS OWN RESEARCH as references for his edits of articles on the Republican Party. Isn't that a violation of the NOR rule?Citizenposse 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen has established a history of suppressing history, particularly on his own "conservative-NET" email list, in several instances: One ExchangeCitizenposse 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed Citizenposse 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Citizenposse" chose a highly inflamatory username common among right wing militia; he uses the militia theory that there were independent republics like the nonexistent "Republic of New Hampshire" and he denounces people (me) as leftwingers. (actually I edit a daily conservative blog, conservativenet.) He used a local newspaper story to try to rewrite the history of the Republican party--going so far as to change the title of a book (Kleppner's) from 1854 to 1853. As I tried to tell him no scholar accepts the theory that the GOP was founded at a secret meeting in 1853. That meeting led to nothing at all. The so-called founder (Tuck) did not even join the Republican party until 2 years later. Citizenposse moved into several articles (on Republican Party, History of republican Party, and Tuck) and made wholesale changes without any discussions despite repeated warnings that scholars reject his pet theory. Rjensen 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not now, and never have been a member of any militia group or other extreme right wing group. I do not subscribe to any arguments of militia groups. I have never read any publications put out by any militia groups. IMHO They have been a bane on legitimate 2nd Amendment exercise. I have provided numerous scholarly and other references supporting the real history. Rjensen's prejudicial view of me based on my chosen user name is reflective of his arrogance, refusal to consider valid historical sources, and insistence on his own opinion as orthodoxy.Citizenposse 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I find no evidence of any www.conservativenet.com, conservativenet.net, or conservative.net blog in existence anywhere on the net. Rjensen may therefore also be committing fraud in his counterclaims.Citizenposse 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. A) Parties don't agree to mediate, B) Not a mediation case.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim Smith
• Nephron
• Tim Lambert
• John Quiggin

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Relative Risk [11]

User talk pages:

• User:Nephron [12]
• User:TimLambert [13]
• User:John_Quiggin [14]

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

This stems from a broader discussion on the John Brignell page which has transferred to the Relative Risk page. There has been extensive discussion of this matter on both talk pages by all sides. Mediation Cabal was attempted for the Brignell page but fell through when the mediator was unable to give the matter his full attention. That page was put to Arbitration but rejected. It will be put to Mediation at a latter date. This particular issue clearly cannot be solved by consensus; it needs the intervention of a third party; hence mediation.

• Article contains a claim about the stated position of Brignell with respect to relative risk which is untrue. The claim is verified by links to partial statements of his position. This should be replaced by a true statement of his position together with the appropriate verifiable reference. The replacement is being rejected because this change does not fit with the subtopic under which the claim is made.

• 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 Engjs 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gnetwerker (talk · contribs)
• Ardenn (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

User talk pages:

• User_talk:Gnetwerker [15]

• WP:TINMC [16]

• I'm trying to mediate under the Mediation Cabal with this user, but she is uncivil towards me and refused to apologize for insulting me, and further demands I leave Wikipedia. Ardenn 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Ardenn 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree/Reject/Refuse -- Gnetwerker 06:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principal parties:

• KeithTyler (talk · contribs)
• Askolnick (talk · contribs)
• Dreadlocke (talk · contribs)
• -Lumière (talk · contribs) aka Étincelle (talk · contribs), Lumiere (talk · contribs)

To a lesser extent - I request that the requirement of these parties to consent to mediation be deemed optional as they are not actively part of the current dispute, though they have been previously involved and have been notified of RFM:

• Julio Siqueira (talk · contribs)
• Tisthammerw (talk · contribs)
• Rohirok (talk · contribs)
• Mikkalai (talk · contribs)
• BillC (talk · contribs)

Possibly valid parties - The following people have no other WP history and may not be familiar with the process or want to be seriously invovled; I did not notify them of RFM:

• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs)
• SkepticReport (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Natasha Demkina [17]

User talk pages:

• User:KeithTyler: Submitter
• user:Askolnick: [18]
• user:Julio Siqueira: [19]
• user:Dreadlocke: [20]
• user:Étincelle: [21]
• user:Tisthammerw: [22]
• user:Rohirok: [23]
• user:Mikkalai: [24]
• user:BillC: [25]

I did not notify the "possibly valid parties" as I am not sure of their level of involvement, suitability as parties, or level of WP familiarity.

• WP:RFC [26]
• WP:MEDCAB [27], [28] (combined, but material exists at both cases)

• Is the current state of Natasha Demkina too heavily weighted towards Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal administered test?
• Do any of the sources added on [29] meet WP:RS or WP:V?
• When it proves to be very difficult to find sources meeting WP:RS or WP:V on a topic, is it acceptable to lessen the restrictions (under the principle of WP:IAR)?
• Can a personal website be a primary source for its own content; namely, the opinions of its author?
• Does the behaviour of any of the participants in this dispute towards the dispute or the other participants warrant a conduct RFC or other referral or redress?

• Should Nobel Laureate Professor Josephson's web page relating to the Natasha Demkina investigation by CSICOP be regarded as a 'personal web site', or as an account of the conclusions of a professional research investigation? Is his critique a Reliable Source/Citable Reference for the article?"

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. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• agree `'mikka (t) 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - Dreadlocke 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Rohirok 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - Wade A. Tisthammer 03:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree - Askolnick 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 83.146.55.85 (talk · contribs)
• The JPS (talk · contribs)
• Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs)
• user:MikeHobday
• etc

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Fred Moss [30]

User talk pages:

• User:The JPS [31]
• User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

[32]

• WP:AN Administrator's Noticeboard

AN is not a step in the dispute resolution process. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fred Moss is a valid article that I created successfuly after another user had failed in its creation several times. I wrote the majority of the article, and provided plenty of sources to ensure its notability. Throughout this, JPS has twice attemtped to delete it, and we have got in many strops about an image, which I eventually relented on. Finally, Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the page as an attack page, when it clearly was not one. Throughout this I have had to fight tooth and nail for the article to remain, and have attempted to remain civil througout. I feel very victimised and am close to giving up on this. I have done nothing but act in good faith, and provide accuarte information.
• In addition, me and my user account, User:Gypsy Eyes have been called sockpuppets of an entirely seperate user, with the only evidence seeming to be an interest in similar articles. I have performed no vandalism, as my contributions demonstrate.

• • For the record, the page was deleted as CSD A7. The media files associated with it were deleted as CSD A6. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:22, 17 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. 83.146.55.85 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. MikeHobday 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd... the above user is not a party to the dispute, has not contributed to any of the deleted pages in question nor any of the associated talk pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I labelled some of the user pages as sockpuppets so the second half of the complaint seems to be about me. However, happy not to be included. MikeHobday 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject:

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cadr (talk · contribs)
• Serge Issakov (talk · contribs)
• rehpotsirhc (talk · contribs)
• Rhobite (talk · contribs)
• Pat8722 (talk · contribs)
• RJII (talk · contribs)
• Irgendwer (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Libertarianism [33]

User talk pages:

• User:Pat8722 [34]
• User:Cadr [35]
• User:Rhobite [36]
• User:Rehpotsirhc [37]
• User:RHII [38]
• User:Irgendwer [39]
• User:Serge Issakov [40]

• [41]

• Should the Libertarianism article introduction accepted by unanimous consensus by those voting on the Talk page be accepted as the introduction, or should the alternative version be accepted, even though it was rejected by all who voted, because the consensus version is alleged by one user to be "unilateral", "false", "circular", etc.?
• Should Libertarianism be described as a political philosophy in the introduction, as agreed by consensus on the Libertarianism Talk page, or should it be described as just a philosophy (without political)?

• 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.

• Serge 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Agree.[reply]

• Cadr 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I don't agree. It is a question of expert knowledge to find correct content. So it makes no sense to involve new members who must all become experts, too. I cannot teach them to experts. But I agree that there are different opinions. So you must only mark your opinion. It could be so easy. --Irgendwer 10:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree - Irgendwer engages in personal attacks and is not fluent in English. Rhobite 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon user is harrasing me and making personal attacks on me. In addition, this user makes many reverts. I don't know who this is and so cannot give contact info on this person. See Talk page for Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attachment_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactive_attachment_disorder#Mercer

I have tried to state where I got my information and be concilliatory.

Issue 1: Stop the personal attacks on me and saying that I am defaming and should be banned. Issue 2: Stop reverting my edits Issue 3: Mutual agreement to respect alternative points of view.

None

• Agree. --Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 11:45, 24 April 2006

I received a message saying that I should contact this part of the web site, but I'm not sure what's required of me. I have added comments and signed them; I haven't deleted or otherwise altered ayone's material, nor have I made any personal remarks, although some have been made about me. I have been told that a statement I made about EBT status was deleted at one point and replaced by someone else.

For the record, I am female; my mother thought it was cute to name me after my father; I changed my spelling legally at the same time I was divorced and resumed my maiden name, and I did so in an apparently fruitless effort to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding. Dr. Becker-Weidman was informed of this fact some months ago, and in fact had to edit a letter to a journal with respect to this point before publication was permitted.

What there is to be mediated on my side escapes me, but no doubt such a process would be entertaining, so I certainly agree. Jean Mercer

• Reject: The initiator fails to even list the parties to the dispute, making it impossible to determine who should or should not be agreeing. The issues set out are not grounds for mediation; I see no reason to believe that there can be useful mediation on the issue.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]