• Ngchen (talk · contribs)
• Larryfooter (talk · contribs)
• Marvin Diode (talk · contribs)

• Foundation for Defense of Democracies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Requests for comment (RFCpol)

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Whether WP:RS is being properly applied in the removal of the sourced criticism of the organization in question. This user believes it is not, and is being used as an excuse to remove negative information.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Ngchen 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Marvin Diode 14:02, 1 November 2007 (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.

Note: The one-week agreement period will be extended by two days on this case, due to Larryfooter's absence since the filing of this case. If Larryfooter does not agree to mediation within two days, this case will be rejected as not all parties agreed to mediation in due course. Larryfooter is, of course, also able to disagree to mediation within that period, in which the case will be rejected also.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FCYTravis (talk · contribs)
• Michaelmorrison (talk · contribs)

• Time Machine (Solution-Soft software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:FCYTravis deleted a majority of content on this page, then while it was being restored to exception to the usage of the trademark symbol for "Time Machine". User claimed that such symbols are usage of the word trademark was not to be used in an article. After pointing out that there is cases for it within Wikipedia (reference Wikipedia article) said user changed course and now insists that tradmark can not be used without first having some undefined amount of other content first. I was following the example from the Wikipedia article with respect to granted trademarks, but had my changes rolled back as they did not meet the satisfaction of user FCYTravis.

I am requesting that this user be asked to stop modifying this article. Also, I would like to have clear guidence on the use of tradmarks in articles.

User:FCYTravis stated on one roll-back "this article is undergoing a stale edit war with single-purpose editor." I agree that I have a single-purpose, yet so it seems does FCYTravis.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1
• Issue 2

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree.

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

"Reject', prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, this is a conduct dispute, and the request has not presented why the Mediation Committee should intervene in this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs)
• Philip_Baird_Shearer (talk · contribs)

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history#Proposal_to_remove_section_titled_.22France.22

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• I wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidlines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views - "We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." And with regards to "Fringe theories" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_in_specific_contexts "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (as Mumaljo did, accusing the historical establishment of a "Marxist bias"). "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history#Proposal_to_remove_section_titled_.22Tibet.22 As it stands, the "allegation " of genocide has no scholarly sources.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree.

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

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs)
• PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs)

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

• Talk page discussion
• RfC
• Arbitration enforcement request

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• How to present the issue of whether Kosovo Serbs were discriminated against by the province's Albanian government during 1970s and 80s, and whether that was one of the reasons for their emigration from the province.
• Whether statement The province had controversially been given extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and had been run by the province's majority-Albanian population. This development led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against by the province's predominately Albanian police force and local government. is NPOV.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Nikola 08:52, 5 November 2007 (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.

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redapes (talk · contribs)
• UtherSRG (talk · contribs)

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

• Example link 1
• Example link 2

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Inclusion/removal of external links

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Redapes 22:22, 15 November 2007 (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.

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Animesouth (talk · contribs)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Animesouth#Anime_South_article_Rfm

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anime_South
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_13

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• The article, Anime South, was deleted on February 2, 2007, mainly due to lack of notability. There were also some COI concerns. On July 13, 2007, the article was then re-created and totally rewritten with more independent sources, to address the lack of notability and COI concerns, than any other article of its kind. Within minutes, it was speedily deleted. A deletion review was requested, but the DRV failed, as it appears most voters thought it was the same old article. I am respectfully requesting that this article be re-created, as it is more notable than many anime conventions which have articles currently on Wikipedia, and better sourced than any other anime convention article. Thank you.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Animesouth (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2007 (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.

Reject, mediation cannot be used to assist in subverting or overturning consensus, which has existed from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13 and the discussions which preceeded that. If you wish to protest the deletion again, please file another deletion review. This case falls quite clearly outside the scope of mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 03:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Appletrees (talk · contribs)
• Good friend100 (talk · contribs)
• Badagnani (talk · contribs)
• Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs)
• Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)
• Jjk82 (talk · contribs)
• Patriotmissile (talk · contribs)
• Keyngez (talk · contribs)
• CJ DUB (talk · contribs)
• Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk · contribs)
• Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs)
• Jerem43 (talk · contribs)

• Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Talk:Korean cuisine#RFC: Consumption of dog meat
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• The original issue that started this ball rolling was edit warring on the dog meat section of the Korean cuisine article. This incident stemmed from consistent incivility on this article by certain editors that has exposed another long term issue.
• The more long term issue that has been exposing it self during the second step of the resolution process has been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war. It is clear that there are a number of "nationalists" of different Asian "viewpoints" that have been promoting an agenda on a multitude of Korean article which Korean cuisine is only a small part of. South Korea has also been blocked from editing for this reason.
• Besides the edit warring, there are a number of parties involved that have been very hostile toward anyone working on the articles other than themselves and in addition, this stems from a larger issue with this users not being civil in many of there actions on Wikipedia unless another user agrees with them. So they are in clear violation of not only WP:Own, but also WP:Civility

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (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.

Note: All three issues listed presently constitute "conduct issues". The Mediation Committee refuses to mediate conduct issues, and readily ignores them, in favour of mediating content issues. Please list issues which pertain directly to mediatable content under dispute, or this case will be rejected as outside the scope of mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject, withdrawn by filer.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Susanbryce (talk · contribs)
• RodentofDeath (talk · contribs)

• Human trafficking in Angeles City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PREDA Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive245#RodentofDeath revert warring in Angeles City
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Defamatory personal attack by User:RodentofDeath
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#RodentofDeath edit warring in Angeles City
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• RodentofDeath will not remove or alter sourced mentions of problemswithout a consensus among the regular editors (and not solely singlepurpose editors with RodentofDeath) on the article Talk page.
• RodentofDeath will use proper Dispute Resolution (such asWikipedia:Third opinion) in any disagreement with Susanbryce, and willcease employing COI allegations, Administrator's Noticeboard andpersonal attacks. In the event that RodentofDeath has a legitimateconcern needing attention from WP:AN, he will ask the assistance of anestablished editor who will decide it it merits administrativeattention.
• RodentofDeath will cease employing personal attacks of any type,including those against public figures (per WP:BLP); and,RodentofDeath will not encourage other editors in such attacks.
• RodentofDeath will refrain from Talk page assertions based onoriginal research, regardless of his personal experience in suchmatters
• RodentofDeath will stop flooding article Talk pages with multipleattacks, and confine such "challenges" to one issue at a time. Theusual slow pace of additions to most of these articles should allowthis.
• Previous discussion has determined reliable sources indicate thatHuman trafficking is a serious problem in Angeles City, which is largely a tourist economy which thrives on prostitution --RodentofDeath will generally avoid sanitizing any mention of this.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Susanbryce 15:20, 2 December 2007 (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.

Reject, on two grounds: issues listed not applicable for mediation, and insufficient prior dispute resolution attempted if this was going to be opened as a content case.

This dispute is a conduct dispute, per every single issue listed above. Firstly, the Mediation Committee does not handle user conduct disputes, and secondly, the Mediation Committee does not make rulings (either on content or conduct disputes).

This would have required an article requests for comment on the subject matter for formal mediation to be accepted. It is also suggested that a Mediation Cabal case be attempted before formal mediation. In addition, this requests for arbitration means that mediation can't run in parallel with arbitration.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hesperian (talk · contribs)
• Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

• Templates in Category:R-phrase templates and Category:S-phrase templates
• Template:Abbr
• other uses of the CSS element abbr

• TfD
• ANI

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• What are the substantive objections to these templates, which have existed for over two years [1] without obvious complaint?
• What would be the most appropriate Community forum/fora to discuss these problems (assuming that substative issues exist) so as to get the widest possible consensus for the future?

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, I'm taking this to ArbCom. Hesperian 22:24, 5 December 2007 (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.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Biaothanatoi (talk · contribs)
• Abuse truth (talk · contribs)
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)
• Tlatosmd (talk · contribs)

• Recovered memory therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovered_memory_therapy#RfC:_Is_it_accurate_to_call_Recovered_Memory_Therapy_a_.27category_of_psychotherapy.27.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovered_memory_therapy#Bullying_on_this_page

• Definition of term
• Neutral point of view

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.

• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (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.

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]