Involved parties

• User:MigraineNonElation (formerly User:76.171.171.194) filing party
• User: Bart133

Articles involved

Bubblegum

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bubblegum
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.171.171.194

Issues to be mediated

User of British versus Standard American English in article Bubblegum. Edit warring by User: Bart133 and ineffective consensus participation.

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

1. Agree. MigraineNonElation (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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 case.

  Insufficient attempts at employing alternative mediums for dispute resolution have been undertaken: when filing a request for formal Mediation, it is expected that such forums as third opinion, requests for comment, and informal mediation have been explored without success.

  The issues to be mediated are comprised in part of issues of editorial conduct; that is, the issues to be mediated are partially concerning how an editor has conducted himself in a Wikipedia dispute, as opposed to what content matters are being disagreed over. Such matters are not suited for formal mediation, and should be directed at a more appropriate medium of handling, such as the incidents noticeboard, requests for comment, or WQA.

  As an aside, policy is rather clear with regards to differences of opinion over whether to use American or British English. Repeatedly, when it has been proposed that one type of English variant be used, the consensus has been that it is wildly impractical to implement such a system, and furthermore there is no agreement on which style should be chosen; in the past resulted in repeated, needless edit warring, and it truly is not worth bothering oneself over. See also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Standardize spellings/Archive.

  For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny ✉ 16:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Bogorm (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Toddst1 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• User:Bogorm (edit | [[Talk:User:Bogorm|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example [1]
• Example [2]*
• Example [3]

Issues to be mediated

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: Justification for the usage of Template:Sockpuppeteer (with parameter "evidence") on user page founded on inconlusive evidence in discordance with its documentation.

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1: Discouragement of counterfeit allegations such as me arguably having edited User:Tiptoety's talk page (here is the history of User:Tiptoety's talk page and my user name is not present there, this applies not only for September, but altogether) - represented as "evidence" on the request for CheckUser.
• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Bogorm (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Decline Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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. Both parties do not agree to mediation. I am also not convinced that this is an appropriate dispute for formal mediation given that there remain many reasonable steps which could been taken to try and resolve the dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. beenturns21 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Barek (talk · contribs)
3. Katr67 (talk · contribs)
4. EncMstr (talk · contribs)
5. Iridescent (talk · contribs)
6. Bonadea (talk · contribs)
7. Makaristos (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Pioneer Courthouse Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

I and others fine editors have attempted to discuss on the talk page and have also personally reached out to editors and admins. However, they refuse to respond and continually revert edits that are arguably appropriate.

Issues to be mediated

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 should reference the homeless bums in pioneer courthouse square. It is a fact that they are there. Nonetheless, admins and other unscrupulous people are attempting to scrub the page clean so there is no mention of homeless bums. It is important to mention these facts in the article. But this is censorship.

Instead of discussing the issue and trying to resolve it (as apparently I and several other users have attempted) unscrupulous editors just revert to the previous version and they have attempted to delete the entire talk page and archive it even though the discussion is fully relevant now and there are apparently users who disagree with the unscrupulous deleting of information about homeless bums. Horrendous admins have also semi-protected the page for no reason. I am willing to mediate this issue and discuss it with them. But they seem unwilling.

I would like to make them understand that they are violating the rules of Wikipedia and should allow fully appropriate edits to stand.

Additional issues to be mediated

The rudeness that has been shown by the unscrupulous editors

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

1. Agree. Beenturns21 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Katr67 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. Makaristos (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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. The parties do not agree to this mediation.

  For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny ✉ 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Gubernatoria (talk · contribs), filing party
• Largoplazo (talk · contribs)
• Seicer (talk · contribs)
• X! (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Orthodox Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • and its talk page

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• 1 Spoke with a different Admin
• 2 Speedy Delete Tag Admin's homepage discouraged direct talk with the admin and instead directed the complainant immediately to the deletion log process
• 3 Wikipedia server unable to accept request for review on the deletion log page. Tried for 3 hours. Kept getting "Wikipedia's server having problems. Try again later" notice.
• Example link 2

Issues to be mediated

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 Deletion of article AFTER copyright authorisation given in writing on discussion page
• Issue 2 Unfriendly "don't talk to me" attitude of Speedy Delete Tag admin
• Issue 3 "Problems with Wikipedia server" notice for such a long time

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

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

1. Agree. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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, Anthøny ✉ 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Fr33kman (talk · contribs), filing party & third opinion volunteer[not a disputing party]
2. Jwri7474 (talk · contribs)
3. Naturstud (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• third opinion 1
• Naturstud requesting help of third opinion volunteer again

Issues to be mediated

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

• Dispute is about what constitutes a "medical degree" as it should be listed on the article page.
• Second issue is regarding RS and V
• Third issue is regarding COI/NPOV

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

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

1. Agree. fr33kman -s- 19:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Naturstud (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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, Anthøny ✉ 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems for the rejection. I am part of MEDCAB also, so it may not be the best place. Perhaps I'll suggest an article RFC to the participants. fr33kman -s- 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Samantha Decanta (talk · contribs)
2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• ((Darren Meade bodybuilder))

Template <nowiki>-ed: that template, and the article "Darren Meade bodybuilder", does not seem to exist. AGK 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1
• Example link 2

Issues to be mediated

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 Darren Meade (bodybuilder page) deletion and continued deletion without reason the second time. Deletions take place without any explanation or specifics given. I've reached out to all the editors in question to resolve.
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1 Deletion and Speed Deletion on originally deleted page and then redraft with all editing requests
• Additional issue 2 Personal threats by Fbb_Talk to my email address and deletion of comments when this issue was being discussed

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

1. Agree. Samantha Decanta

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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.

  The article "Darren Meade (bodybuilder)" does not seem to exist; no content-related issues to be Mediated have been presented (although indeed ones regarding administrator conduct and of editorial conduct have); and no parties to the dispute have been named. Unfortunately, there simply seems to be nothing for this Committee to assist with, from the information provided. If the filer, "Samantha" (again, the named filer—full name given, "Samantha Decanta"—does not seem to be a registered account), has further information that could be provided, I am willing to assist with a re-filing of this request with the required dispute data and history, as well as with formatting matters. For now, however, there seems to be nothing to handle.

  The issues to be mediated make reference to article deletion, the inference being that this request is ultimately a complaint over a speedy deletion. Should this be the case, attention is directed at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, an information page regarding deleted articles; at Wikipedia:Deletion review, a process where article deletions—and whether they are justified—can be considered; and at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, an information page regarding the "speedy deletion criterion" by which it seems the bodybuilder article was deleted. Deletions, and whether they were justified, are not the purview of this Committee, however, and therefore a case of that nature cannot be accepted.

  For the Mediation Committee,
  AGK 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Inclusionist (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Victorcoutin (talk · contribs)
3. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
4. Theresa Knott (talk · contribs)
5. Mattnad (talk · contribs)
6. Amwestover (talk · contribs)
7. JoshuaZ (talk · contribs)
8. Erxnmedia (talk · contribs)
9. VasileGaburici (talk · contribs)
10. Victorcoutin (talk · contribs)
11. Stifle (talk · contribs)
12. Orangemike (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• 3 requests for deletion Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Deletion
• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#His views on taxation
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
• Requests_for_page_protection
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe_the_Plumber
• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house
• Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_limited_public_figures (new)

Issues to be mediated

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

• Should the tax lien information on Joe the Plumber's house, which has been reported in hundreds of media outlets around the world, be included in the Joe the Plumber article?
• Does the tax lien information meet WP:BLP?

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Has the number of references for the tax lien been handled responsibly by the parties involved? Collect (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Inclusionist (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Erxnmedia (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. VictorC (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reject (see talk page). VG ☎ 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Nolo contendere; I don't have any problem with mediation but will not be active enough in the next couple of weeks to take part in any serious way. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Reject (per Talk) Collect (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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.
  Not all parties agree to Mediation.
  For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A twelve hour window? That's kinda expedited. New messages on my talk page this morning included both the request and the refusal. --Amwestover (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I could be mistaken about this, but my message said there was seven days to respond? --VictorC (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The case will remain open for a maximum of seven days in so long as there is no party opposition; as soon as a party indicates he or she is unwilling to participate in the Mediation, the Committee's procedure is to reject the case at that point. Of course, we also reject if all parties have failed to agree within seven days (even if there has been no disagreement). I'm sorry if this is a disappointment; you are welcome to discuss the matter amongst yourselves, and perhaps discuss with the dissenting parties their rationale for not agreeing—with a view to refiling the case at a later date. AGK 17:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Amwestover (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Twoggle (talk · contribs), filing party
2. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
3. Fyslee (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).
• Request to discuss at end of this section
• Numerous requests to discuss before deleting large sections of article -- See my revert comments
• Prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article

Issues to be mediated

• Mediation Cabal Details - POVing of article, No prior consensus/discussion, Ignoring request for discussion of each issue involved in major deletions.
• As per Mediation Cabal request, go back to version (prior to 10/26/2008) and have a mediated, civil and respectful discussion of points, or perhaps split the article into two articles (pro- and anti- articles) so as to somehow retain NPOV.

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

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

1. Agree. Twoggle (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. User:Twoggle should be banned from editing this article as a problematic singe-purpose account. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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. Not all parties agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. FangedFaerie (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)
3. Wasted Time R (talk · contribs)
4. Zsero (talk · contribs)
5. Enigmaman (talk · contribs)
6. Amwestover (talk · contribs)
7. Sssoul (talk · contribs)
8. AzureFury (talk · contribs)
9. Scjessey (talk · contribs)
10. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk · contribs)
11. DigitalNinja (talk · contribs)
12. Anarchangel (talk · contribs)
13. Shenme (talk · contribs)
14. Jackelfive (talk · contribs)
15. Writegeist (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Discussion
• RFC
• Further discussion

Issues to be mediated

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/exclusion of information regarding al-Qaeda "endorsement" of John McCain for President, and the McCain campaign's response.

Parties' agreement to mediation

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.

(Recently erased comments (on comments that shouldn't be here either, as stated in this paragraph) can be found at the talk page in the Comments from "Parties' agreement to mediation" section. Please refrain from filling up this page with further misplaced edits. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

1. Agree. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Zsero (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. (all i did was respond to the RfC as a noninvolved party, but if mediation is needed, go for it!) Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. I was swept into this argument by accident but would be happy to see an end result. Jackelfive^(talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree, but why is mediation necessary? My impression was that the RfC was working. csloat (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. I dropped out of this issue early, after I saw it was becoming a huge edit war. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Disagree. (see talk)... Digital^Ninja 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree. Sure, why not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. Enigma ^message 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Disagree per DigitalNinja's reasons on the talk page. I also feel policy is clear on the matter. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Disagree. Good faith has not been demonstrated by several involved parties, therefore mediation will be useless. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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. Not all parties agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Atdm (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1
• Example link 2

Issues to be mediated

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: When I first read the article on "glasnost" I noticed many inaccracies (some of them were removed by the author(s) since. All my attempts to add a couple of paragraphs of politically neutral corrections were "reverted". At first, I thought it was a mistake, but it kept happaning. I have much historical knowledge on the issue (especially, since I lived through this policy) and I beleive my input was going to be valuable. I like to use Wikipedia, and even though I have seen historical inaccuracies before, this was the first time I tried to edit what I believe to be a description of a very significant process in the former USSR.

If I am doing something wrong, I need a clear explanation on what mistakes were made... Otherwise it appears that some authors of wikipedia have a complete monopoly on contents of the articles, not allowing any edits (in my case, actually, additions).

Please, help

In your user talk page User talk:Atdm you were given a list of the major wikipedia policies related to addition of content: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, WP:CITE. It seems that you are ignoring the advice to read them. Until you confirm that you read the rules it is unclear what kind of help you need. `'Míkka>t 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue 2: Edymology edit on the same word - "glasnost"

Additional issues to be mediated

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 are more than two parties involved in this case.

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

1. Agree. ATDM 13:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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, AGK 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]