Involved parties

• dacy69 (talk · contribs)
• Eupator (talk · contribs)
• TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Urartu

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1 - Part of the "Urartu" entry dealing with "Ethnic Composition".

Additional issues to be mediated

Parties' agreement to mediate

1. Agree.dacy69
2. Agree.nareklm
3. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

• Reject: Parties did not agree to medaite within the seven day window.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Bobak (talk · contribs)
• 72.130.108.173 (talk · contribs)
• JWright0 (talk · contribs)
• Hector M Lopez (talk · contribs)
• IvanBaiul (talk · contribs)
• 207.47.65.202 (talk · contribs)
• SSeas (talk · contribs)
• Linc Park (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Mark Sanchez

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link (none)
• WP:AN/I discussion (none)

Issues to be mediated

• Whether "All information sourced by legitimate media should be presented" on an arrest for sexual assault that was never prosecuted.

Additional issues to be mediated

• If this is not fit for mediation, when where should this issue be taken?

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Bobak 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree Hector M Lopez 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree JWright0 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree Linc Park 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree SSeas

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject Parties fail to agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Abe Froman
• Tom Harrison ^Talk
• MONGO
• Sam Blanning^(talk)
• Regebro
• Peter Grey
• Ronabop
• StuffOfInterest
• rogerd
• Rx StrangeLove
• Slipgrid
• SalvNaut
• NuclearZer0
• Mmx1

Articles involved

• September 11, 2001 attacks

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• [1] [2] Discussion
• [3] Outside Opinion
• [4] Straw Poll

Issues to be mediated

• An external timeline of 911 events from a website called Cooperative Research is unsuitable for inclusion in the 911 Attacks article because it is a link to a donation appeal [5], uses a conspiratorial editing tone, and has verifiability problems with its claimed sources. An informal straw poll supported this resolution 11-3.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Compromise: Rather than use the Cooperative Research link, an external timeline from CNN has been proposed, instead. [6]

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. --StuffOfInterest 17:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. --NuclearZer0 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. --Abe Froman 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Disagree.--MONGO 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Disagree. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. ––Slipgrid 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Disagree --Mmx1 17:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Disagree --rogerd 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. --Peter Grey 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agree. SalvNaut 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree. Ronabop 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected. Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Ymous (talk · contribs)
• Filll (talk · contribs)
• GetAgrippa (talk · contribs)
• Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs)
• Guinnog (talk · contribs)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)
• Candorwien (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Talk:Evolution

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

Censoring of discussing by Admins. We're not even talking about changing the article! Admins are actually censoring the discussion because it presents factual evidence they don't agree with.

Further, how can the Admins/Mods that are censoring the discusssion actually be allowed to veto the arbitration? It's like telling the criminal he can toss out his own case, if he wants.

Of course these "Mods" are going to disagree with Arbitration, because it only serves their purpose. How is that fair? They get to delete discussion, and then avoid any repercussions because they dont' want any? It's not logical at all.

Additional issues to be mediated

Abuse of Power NPOV in the Evolution Article Biting Newcomers

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Ymous 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.
3. Disagree. Titanium Dragon 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. '"Disagree'". GetAgrippa 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Disagree.--Filll 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. DisagreeOrangeMarlin 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Disagree Candy 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject Parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:The Blue Lion

My user account was blocked by a user that suspoect me of being someone else. I tried unblock and the request was ignored. The user, Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) suspects me of being EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) because I used images found on his webpage to improve the Voltron page. Both users Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) and EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) have a long history of fighting and edit warring and I had no idea that using images from Eddie's site would lead to being blocked myself. Although evading a block might be forbidden. I felt it was necessary to voice my opinion against a user I would have had nothing to do with in an attempt to clear my name. I would not have create this account had it not been for the action of the above user. The Blue Lion 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• The Blue Lion (talk · contribs)
• Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Voltron

Issues to be mediated

• Suspicion that I'm another user (The IP I used a public use computer)

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. --User:The Blue Lion
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject: This is not an issue for mediation. If you feel that you were wronged by another user in terms of blocking, it would probably be best to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard, or perhaps file a request for comment.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Makrandjoshi (talk · contribs)
• iipmstudent9 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1 - Mention of the institute being unaccredited.
• Issue 2 - Inclusion of the opinion of the Chairman of India's University Grants Commission

Additional issues to be mediated

• Ad hominem attack on one of the sources cited - Rashmi Bansal
• Continuous whitewashing of the page to remove all criticism of the institute

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Makrandjoshi 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediaition within 7 days.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Circeus (talk · contribs)
• Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

A number of other users are involved in a broader discussion, but it's between us two I think mediation might be most useful, as we are the two mostly butting heads with each others.

Articles involved

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization
  • Some extra discussion Is at BDJ's talk page.
  • While discussion hasn't escalated to WP:CIVIL yet, we have come today to both accusing each others of denying the other's opinion and arguments, so I preferred to ask for Mediation before we actually reach that point.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• This stems from a guideline dispute that has generated posts at WP:AN/I, WP:VPP and WP:RFC/POLICIES

Issues to be mediated

• Whether WP:OC is fit to be tagged with ((guideline)) and treated as such.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Whether sufficient consensus was achieved when WP:OC was first tagged as a guideline.
  • Reason that WP:OC's legitimacy is contested

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Circeus 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

• This does not appear to be a mediation dispute; while we would be happy to help the two of you resolve any disputes you might have, we really can't be involved in "deciding" an issue like the policy status of the pages. This is one of those rare cases where I'm going to have to ask for a bit more detail on the proposed scope of medaition. (On the talk page, please.) Essjay (Talk) 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject: This dispute isn't right for mediation; it should be raised in a forum like ANI or RFC where the broader community can participate.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs)
• Eupator (talk · contribs)
• Fadix (talk · contribs)
• Dacy69 (talk · contribs)
• Nareklm (talk · contribs)
• Parishan (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Paytakaran

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• My attempt to solve the issue. Khoikhoi 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Dispute as to whether or not Caspiane/Paytakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Grandmaster 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Nareklm 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Parishan 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Dacy69 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected. Parties do not agree to mediation.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)
• Okkar (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Military of Myanmar

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Issues to be mediated

• Non military related facts
• NPOV and out of scope from WikiProjects Military History
• Using Wikipedia to settle political scores and as propaganda playground

Additional issues to be mediated

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree. Okkar 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Mkdw (talk · contribs)
• Ckatz (talk · contribs)
• Langara College (talk · contribs)
• Skookum1 (talk · contribs)
• Duhon (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Hollywood North

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• US Reaction Section
• NPOV Issues
• Improper citations failing to support statements
• Reverting to grammatically incorrect versions
• Staying with in the scope of the article

Additional issues to be mediated

• Re-surfacing issues that had been solved
• Ensuring factual accuracy is maintained

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

1. Agree - Langara College 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree - Duhon 08:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disgree - (see talk page) - Mkdw^talk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree - (see talk page) - Ckatz^chat_spy 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 10:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]