Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.
Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee's policy at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy, and so requests for mediation must satisfy the preconditions provided for by that policy.
To file a request for mediation, please skip to #File a request.
For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide.
[edit] File a request
-
- Read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide
- Read Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Preconditions; the dispute must meet all those preconditions
|
The procedure for requesting formal mediation of a dispute is as follows:
- Open Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/File in a new tab and follow the initial instructions on that page;
- Beneath "Users involved in dispute" (in section 1), add, using the {{user}} template, the username of every editor involved in the dispute;
- Immediately below, at Articles concerned in this dispute, add a link to every article (or page) concerned in the dispute;
- Immediately below again, at Other steps of dispute resolution, link to all prior attempts at dispute resolution (such as article talk page discussions, RFCs, or previous formal and informal mediation cases);
- Under Primary issues (in section 2), concisely explain what content of the articles has in dispute, and what variations of this content have been proposed;
- Please change nothing else. Now save the page.
MediationBot will then list your case at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending and notify the parties you listed to the dispute that the request has been filed.
|
-
- The instructions that appear at the top of the page when filing a request are the same as in the box above, and are viewable here.
- Check that MediationBot has added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending; it may take up to an hour to do this. MediationBot will also notify all the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been filed (or message the Committee if this is not possible). If either of these steps are not completed promptly, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee.
- Add the case page to your watchlist, because members of the Mediation Committee may put queries to the parties or submit further suggestions whilst the request for mediation is being considered.
[edit] Pending requests
| Request for mediation concerning User talk:Liamfoley |
[edit] User talk:Liamfoley
- Users involved in dispute
- Liamfoley (talk · contribs), filing party
- Binksternet (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liamfoley#Conflict_of_interest_regarding_abortion
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.
[edit] Issues to be mediated
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issues
I've been accused of being an activist which I deny. The other party has no evidence that I am an office holder, draw a salary or is even a member of any organization.
The other editor has attempted to "out" me, mentioning non Wikipedia sites. I regard this as sinister and intimidatory. This puts me at risk of online bullying. I understand that this kind of behaviour is par for the course in many online discussion boards but it's clearly not what I expected from Wikipedia.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Liamfoley appears to have a conflict of interest as defined by WP:COI: "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Outside of Wikipedia, a person named Liam Foley has been engaged in the promotion of an anti-abortion activist organization called Pro Life Campaign Ireland. On Wikipedia, Liamfoley was blocked for edit warring after repeatedly adding an unverified promotional poll hosted by Pro Life Campaign Ireland. This appears to me to be the same person.
- I am not interested in outing any editor. I certainly did not post links to the behavior I noticed outside of Wikipedia, nor did I reveal the address or contact information of the real world Liam Foley. I simply wish to protect the wiki from activism, from editors such as Liamfoley who violate the spirit of WP:COI#Campaigning by promoting a cause rather than neutrally stating the facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Liamfoley (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
| Request for mediation concerning {{subst:1st Independent Spirit Awards}} |
[edit] {{subst:1st Independent Spirit Awards}}
| Mediation Committee case |
| Article |
[[{{subst:1st Independent Spirit Awards}}|{{subst:1st Independent Spirit Awards}}]] ([[Talk:{{subst:1st Independent Spirit Awards}}|talk]]) |
| Opened |
{{subst:26}} {{subst:FEB}} 2012 |
| Parties |
|
| Mediator |
— |
| Status |
Unknown (?). |
| Remarks |
— |
| view • talk • edit • delete • watch |
- Users involved in dispute
- Bill shannon (talk · contribs)
- DreamFieldArts (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
[edit] Issues to be mediated
- Primary issues
- The listings for the individual articles for the Independent Spirit Awards need to be cleaned up. As of this afternoon, we had listings ranging from 1986 - 2011. As you will notice via history, there is an inconsistency in the listings. For example, the listing for the 2011 awards list the films of 2011 (the ceremony was held in 2012, today in fact). But the first listing we had 1986 -- was for the 1986 ceremony, for the films of 1985. The template used does not have the correct years, not consistently. There were a few articles that the template points to that have not been completed, but when they were, there would be a severe issue.
- My goal was to create uniformity among all the entries for the award ceremonies. (Eventually I was going to go in and complete the missing entries as well.) I tried to do this by -- instead of listing a year -- I ordered the ceremonies as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. so that there would be no confusion. I also created disambiguation pages that pointed to multiple options of someone was searching by year (see 2nd Independent Spirit Awards for an example). These disambiguation pages are not unprecedented: see 2010 Academy Awards. (The other user, DreamFieldArts, stated that since the Independent Spirit Awards were "nowhere near as big as the Oscars" (paraphrasing) that they weren't needed, something I find to be an incredibly arbitrary opinion. Just because it's not "as big," does that mean it shouldn't be accurate?
- I was "ordered" (under penalty of banishment) to stop adding pages. I have been a Wikipedian since 2005, and have added countless pages. I have started pages that have grown well beyond what I started them as. I don't see how someone can simply threaten to ban me because HE (or SHE, I don't know) doesn't like what I'm doing. Rather than having a discussion, this user's first move was to a) "order" me to stop, and b) threaten to ban me. No discussion, no reaching for consensus. I am a Wikipedian too, and just because this person ranks higher on the totem pole than I do, it doesn't mean that HE/SHE gets to start banning people wantonly because of his/her own (flimsy, I might add) arguments.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Bill shannon (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. DreamFieldArts 6:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
| Request for mediation concerning Digital Extremes Employment History |
[edit] Digital Extremes Employment History
- Users involved in dispute
- GyronWells (talk · contribs), filing party
- Rebulast (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
Digital_Extremes#Employment_Environment_.26_Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.
[edit] Issues to be mediated
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issues
- GyronWells, an admitted ex-employee, has posted a PDF of a ruling from the Ontario Minisitry of Labour to the page. This source is Original Research, not public, and hosted on his personal blog. This PDF contained sensitive information of other employees.
- The user expresses ad hominem phrases in the Digital Extremes talk page, revealing the personal nature of the edit.
- GyronWells has a posse of editors adding libelous content to the company page, and it is a conflict of interest and personally charged toward the company.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Rebulast (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
- Comment I will allow this some time for response or further revision/comment but on its face this appears to be a conduct issue and not appropriate for mediation, see Rejected requests common reasons #5. --WGFinley (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Request for mediation concerning Vic Toews |
[edit] {{subst:Vic Toews}}
- Users involved in dispute
- Example (talk · contribs), filing party
- Example2 (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Link here to attempts at dispute resolution.
[edit] Issues to be mediated
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issues
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Sailsmart (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
| Request for mediation concerning August Burns Red |
[edit] August Burns Red
- Users involved in dispute
- asimpleart (talk · contribs), filing party
- Gunmetal (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gunmetal_Angel/Archive_7#Bells_Associated_act
[edit] Issues to be mediated
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issues
- Bells is an associated act of August Burns Red. Jon Hershey was an original member who started with the other members started the band and has since branched off, creating his own Associated act. I use wikipedia's own example to defend my contribution ( which you can see in this screenshot http://i.imgur.com/QDg6w.png ). Gunmetal impulsively removes my edit and demises my explanation as inefficient, yet ignores that I'm following the example of 1000's of other articles. He even goes so far as to call it vandalism and has threatened to report to administrators. Wikipedia is great because it is a resource to find and update articles to be more and more accurate. It's why I use it everyday. Gunmetals careless edits on my contributions is not only a disservice to me, but to wikipedia as a whole.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- I am not being a "disservice" at all. This user (Asimpleart) right here is simply choosing NOT to abide to the guideline here » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts that clearly states that associated acts should not included if only one member is in common with both bands. The user continues not to follow this guideline and disregards it with "other articles having it like this" as his only excuse, which shouldn't matter. A million people could make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. And with him choosing not to follow the rules, I've suggested to start telling administrators on him since there's nothing else I could do. • GunMetal Angel 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gunmetal, Bells has multiple members from ABR, both existing and past, which are involved. See video interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-90ye8kwWH4&t=1m13s . "I'm playing drums live, and I'm trying to get my foot in the door for the record as well". - Matt Greiner - Drummer, August Burns Red
- Well, whatever, I never wanted to care this much for it. I was simply going by what a guideline says but if you want to go on for this far, just have it your way. • GunMetal Angel 05:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Asimpleart (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree (see above or see talk page for explanation) • GunMetal Angel 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
|
[edit] Recently rejected requests
- Requests that have been recently rejected by the Committee will be linked below. All rejected cases are eventually moved to a separate archive, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archives (under "Rejected requests").
[edit] Falafel
-
- Rejected 25 September 2011
[edit] Theory of ionic weapons
-
[edit] Men's rights movement
-
[edit] Comparison of color models in computer graphics
-
[edit] Yoghurt
-
[edit] Admins assuming bad faith
-
- Rejected 11 November 2011
[edit] TimeClock Plus
-
- Rejected 20 November 2011
[edit] Trial of Conrad Murray
-
- Rejected 21 November 2011
[edit] Blue Army (Poland) 2
-
- Rejected 21 November 2011
[edit] Lion's Share
-
- Rejected 23 November 2011
[edit] Yugoslav Partisans
-
- Rejected 21 December 2011
[edit] Hispaniola
-
- Rejected 21 December 2011
[edit] Occidental Petroleum
-
[edit] Liam Neeson
-
[edit] Tamil People
-
[edit] Slide-rule
-
[edit] Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)
-
[edit] Global Warming Controversy
-
[edit] Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique
-
- Rejected 13 February 2012
[edit] Indexes
| Click 'show' to view index of archives |
This is an index of mediation proceedings of the Mediation Committee.
Closed cases
These are cases which underwent formal mediation of the Mediation Committee and have been closed. Cases which were closed as successful and as unsuccessful are all included in these archives.
Rejected requests
Requests for formal mediation are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Requests which are rejected by the Mediation Committee are substituted onto an archive page and then deleted.
|
|
Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box on the right.
