• Andries (talk · contribs)
• ProEdits (talk · contribs)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs)
• M_Alan_Kazlev (talk · contribs)

• WP:RFC [1] No response was received.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba - This ruling specifically states: "Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)". Robert Priddy's wiki-page is listed in the Category:Sathya Sai Baba and deals directly with Sathya Sai Baba as outlined by the ArbCom ruling. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with SSS108 implicit statement that the above arbcom case can be classified as a failed dispute resolution attempt for this particular conflict. Andries 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Andries. The ArbCom ruling is specific to any article regarding Sathya Sai Baba and any links to websites that contain original research or personal accounts, as in the case of Robert Priddy's Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites that have nothing to do with Priddy, but are exclusively against Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also see comment from --User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dispute about the external link section. User:SSS108 opposes inclusion of linking a website authored and maintained by Robert Priddy, because he thinks it is defamatory of another living person i.e. Sathya Sai Baba and hence cannot be listed because it would violate WP:BLP and the recently closed arbcom case regarding Sathya Sai Baba. In contrast user:Andries insists on listing it because he thinks it should be linked to according to WP:EL i.e. it is one of Robert Priddy’s homepages and he asserts that Robert Priddy can slander anyone he likes in his own article.
• Inclusion of an external link critical of the subject, authored and maintained by user:SSS108. user:SSS108 insists on including the website while user:M_Alan_Kazlev opposes it.
  • User user:M_Alan_Kazlev is an associate of Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) and claimed he has a "personal friendship" with him (divulged in an e-mail correspondence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSS108 (talk • contribs)

• This issue seems to be more an issue between Andries and me. Neither Kazlev, ProEdits or myself have been informed on our Talk Pages about this request for mediation. Even after making this request for mediation, Andries is reverting the article anyway [2] [3]. Therefore, it seems Andries is setting up this request for failure in an attempt to prevent mediation from occurring. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional issue 2

This section is for the other party to add any issues that are not included above. User bullet points to add additional issues. This is not a response to the issues set out above, nor is it an opportunity to make a statment of the party's opinion, describe another user's actions, or state the history of the dispute. Only issues are to be added; as above, commentary on persons, rather than issues, will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee. Excessive or spurrious commentary will also be removed. (Once again, only committee members may remove text from the RfM page.)

Each party should provide the issues to be mediated in a separate section; if there are three parties, then there should be three "issue" sections. Editing of another party's section is not allowed. If any party does not agree to mediate, it is not necessary to fill out these sections; simply indicate "Do not agree" and sign in the section below. If any party refuses to mediate, then the mediation will be automatically rejected.

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

Only signatures should go here, along with either "Agree" or "Do not agree." Any additional comments will be removed by a member of the Mediation Committee.

• Agree. Andries 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Agree. See New Development [4] SSS108 ^talk-email 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. M Alan Kazlev 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not agree. ~~~~

• Reject: Failure to agree to mediate. Also, improperly listed. I came across it at random, and apparently it was listed about 2 months ago.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ArielS
• Walloon
• Gareth E Kegg

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArielS

• Issue 1 User Walloon is attempting to allege that Katharine Hepburn was a lesbian. These kinds of attacks on dead celebrities should be banned from Wikipedia.
• Issue 2 User Ariels frequently removes the Oscar boxes from the Katharine Hepburn Article.

Agree ArielS 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject - Improperly listed from over a month ago. Just came across it tonight.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jessica93 (talk · contribs)
• Saxifrage (talk · contribs)

Gary Chapman Bonnie Jo Chapman Cecily_Chapman/Cecily_Barmore Abbie Mae Chapman Lyssa Chapman They were delited by Saxifrage (talk · contribs)

• Gary Chapman
• Bonnie Jo Chapman
• Cecily_Chapman/ also know as Cecily_Barmore
• Abbie Mae Chapman

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

There was no discusion by other user involved with this.

I created several articles of the children of Duane Chapman and Beth Smith. How come there deleted. Anybody that is currently in a TV show and has en IMDB entry is worthwhile to have article created on.

They were deleted them before there can be a discussion done on them by other users. I think that other user should give their opinion discus/debate before they are deleted.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree.

--Jessica93 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. This was a pretty routine set of speedy-deletions. I gave the user an explanatory message about speedy-deletions after they asked why the articles were deleted, to which they didn't reply before filing this request. They can file a deletion review request at Deletion review if they don't want to deal with the deleting admin. (Note further that I am not the deleting admin except for Gary Chapman TV anyway.) — Saxifrage ? 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Failure for all parties to agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeraeph (talk · contribs)
• Psychonaut (talk · contribs)
• A Kiwi (talk · contribs)
• Doc Tropics (talk · contribs)
• Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist discussion
• User talk:Psychonaut discussion
• User talk:Wizardry Dragon discussion
• User talk:Doc Tropics/Nuetral ground discussion

• During the course of this issue I have been at pains to act in strict accord with policy particularly as laid out in WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF and yet I seem to be constantly accused of personal attacks that have not happened and nefarous motives I do not possess mainly by User:Psychonaut and User:Wizardry Dragon I cannot understand what is happening or why. When I request specific examples of the aspects of my behaviour that are being objected, to none are produced. User:A Kiwi has been similarly attacked for seconding some of my arguments. I feel that what should be an objective issue has become far too personal. --Zeraeph 02:48, 31 October 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. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree --Zeraeph 03:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Agree --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Refuse. The primary focus of this request was the behaviour of User:Psychonaut, who has declined to participate. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Refuse. This mediation can't go forward with two major parties unable or refusing to take part. ? Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Major parties refuse to mediate.

For the Mediation Commitee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• JohnLattier (talk · contribs)
• The cabal

• 0.999...

• undefined

• The issue if the article in question is totally correct or the opposite.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree.

• Reject: This is not a mediation case. First, there is no cabal. Second, the cabal cannot be named as a party in dispute resolution. Third, there is no cabal.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sugaar (talk · contribs)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) (as administrator)

• WP:PAIN case against Sugaar diff of removal of the case
• White people (only indirectly)

None (other than informal discussion in Shell Kinney's talk page)

• If Shell Kenney did or not mishandle the case, archiving it without a clear resolution, despite Sugaar's demands of order.
• Which is the final resolution. There are three contradictory ones:

• • Shell Kinney warned me (in my user talk) for personal attacks for using the descriptive and relevant terms "nazi" and "racist". She did not mention the warn in the case. The warn read:

Calling another editor a nazi, regardless of whether you think it is true, is completely unacceptable. If you continue, you may be blocked for personal attacks. Please find a more civil way to discuss your concerns about the article. Shell babelfish 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Durova stated that:

Administrator blows referee whistle - This is not the place to debate ideology. Per the instructions at the top of this noticeboard, page diffs are required for reports here - not unsupported allegations or links to Wikipedia discussions. I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Wikipedia do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This noticeboard cannot mediate a content dispute. It can evaluate and take appropriate actions in response to personal attacks. DurovaCharge! 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(bold type is mine to emphasize the contradictions with Shell Kenney's warn).

• • Luna Santin stated:

*PAIN is not a dispute resolution forum. Not to be too harsh, but we need to keep things here neat, orderly, and to a pretty narrow subject material. I'm interested in personal attacks; I'll keep an eye on this for the time being, but I'd encourage all of you to just try to settle down a bit and resolve your differences through the usual dispute resolution process instead of trying to get each other blocked. If attacks continue or escalate, please provide diffs to support any reports made here. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(a "no relevance" resolution)

So I asked the warn removed or at least clearly reviewed, as the different administrators had resolved different things. But Shell Kinney archived/removed the case without allowing more time for it and without a clear resolution. I protested that was hiding the dirt under the rug but got no replies. I also protested at her talk page but we only talked in circles.

My request is that the case is reopened until the warn is reviewed (this does not mean necessarily removed, just reviewed consistently) and that a clear resolution is issued.

Note: I fear that this mishandled case gave air to Thulean to keep wikilawyering against other editors who opposed his views, with or without reason. It also made me (and possibly other serious wikipedians) to feel gagged. At some point I had to recuse myself from the mediation cabal because I felt I could hardly express my opinions being under (apparent, unclear) warn and therefore danger of block.

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

• Agree.

--Sugaar 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Shell ^babelfish 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: This isn't a matter for mediation. First, it doesnt' rise to the level of formal dispute resolution; it could be quickly and easily solved via ANI. Second, the Mediation Committee does not sit as a court to expunge warnings from user's talk pages or to direct the handling of noticeboards. If the matter cannot be dropped, then take it to ANI and fight it out there. Essjay (Talk) 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dev920 (talk · contribs)
• Badbilltucker (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals
• User talk:Dev920
• User talk:Badbilltucker

• Issue 1 - Should User:Dev920 ask each person who opposes the LGBT barnstar several questions regarding their decision to oppose it?
• Issue 2 - Should implicitly and explicitly stated requests to cease a conversation be observed?

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

• Agree.
• Badbilltucker 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per talk
• Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mowster (talk · contribs) (Filer)
• Zoe (talk · contribs)
• Argyriou (talk · contribs)
• Calton (talk · contribs)

• [[5]]

• WP:RFC [[6]]
• WP:AN/I discussion

• Is the article worth of a Wikipedia entry. Although the title is local to Alameda, it's of interest to anybody interested in land use.
• Repeated deletion of images. I uploaded images and clearly identified the source, people keep removing them saying I didn't identify the source correctly.
• Should people with obvious biases on the issue in question be allowed to push for a deletion of the entry because they stand on one side or the other of the issue?

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree.
• Disagree. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Nonsensical wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Argyriou (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties fail to agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 07:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trialsanderrors (talk · contribs)
• Example (talk · contribs)

• Alameda Measure A - Now Deleted

• WP:RFC [[7]]
• WP:AN/I discussion

• Trialsanderrors deleted the article with a patently false accusation of personal attacks, and despite several people voting to keep the article, and despite several other people voting against it who may well have their own conflicts of interest.
• Issue 2

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

• Agree.
• Disagree. Disagreements about AfD closures should be brgought up at WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties fail to agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KazakhPol (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

• Muhammad al-Durrah

• Wikipedia:Third opinion[8][9]

• Grammar

• Whether doubt about his death is a "minority view" that should not be mentioned

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree. KazakhPol 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 05:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]