Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

New Requests

New requests should be listed at the top of this section, right below this message. All requests must use the {{RFMR}} template. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide provides an explaination for how to file a request; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sample shows the template with instructions. All parties to the mediation must indicate agreement to mediate by signing the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section; any request that has not been signed by all parties within 7 days will be rejected. A description of common reasons for rejecting requests is available at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection.

Important note: Any request that fails to include all the information required by the {{RFMR}} format will be delisted immediately. Any request that includes additional information, particularly commentary, will have the additional information removed. Parties should adhere to the format strictly.

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Involved parties

• Alai (talk · contribs)
• Alienus (talk · contribs)
• Bcatt (talk · contribs)
• COGDEN (talk · contribs)
• Cookiecaper (talk · contribs)
• Cunado19 (talk · contribs)
• Freedominthought (talk · contribs)
• FyzixFighter (talk · contribs)
• Hawstom (talk · contribs)
• It's Mormonlicious (talk · contribs)
• MrWhipple (talk · contribs)
• Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
• Swatjester (talk · contribs)-- Note: I'm not an actual party to the disputes as I'm not an editor of the article: I came to the talk page to help insure civility between users and to help stop the personal attacking. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• TheScurvyEye (talk · contribs)
• Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs)
• Trödel (talk · contribs)
• Trevdna (talk · contribs)
• Val42 (talk · contribs)
• Visorstuff (talk · contribs)
• Wadsworth (talk · contribs)
• Wesley (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Joseph Smith, Jr. [1] [2]

User talk pages:

• Alai [3]
• Alienus [4]
• Bcatt [5]
• COGDEN [6]
• Cookiecaper [7]
• Cunado19 [8]
• Freedominthought [9]
• FyzixFighter [10]
• Hawstom [11]
• It's Mormonlicious [12]
• MrWhipple [13]
• Storm Rider [14]
• Swatjester [15]
• TheScurvyEye [16]
• Tijuana Brass [17]
• Trödel [18]
• Trevdna [19]
• Val42 [20]
• Visorstuff [21]
• Wadsworth [22]
• Wesley [23]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [24]

[25]

• Wikipedia:Third Opinion

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Issues to be mediated

• Can there be any agreement in the disputes between User:Bcatt, User:It's Mormonlicious and User:Freedominthought and LDS/Mormon editors on the page as to what constitutes POV.
• Most edits currently being made are disputed by both sides of the many arguments, and have been for weeks.
• In a biography, what is the difference between significance in events as described by historians (such as being the first presidential candidate assasinated) and " "what is [the biographee] best known for?"
• Should Joseph Smith's form of plural marriage be labeled Polygyny or Polygamy?
• Should a parent-page article (with multiple sub-articles) give a comphrehensive discussion of topics treated elsewhere?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Has User:Visorstuff abused adminstrative privileges as stated by Bcatt and Freedominthought:

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

• How can NPOV be properly presented in faith-based articles.
• Should faith-based articles take an initial approach from the adherents point of view and then give room for detractors points of views?
• Should Mormon editors be banned from editing Mormon-related articles or should there be a limit on how many Mormons can edit a single Mormon related page? [41]

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.

• Agree. [[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Tom Haws 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Alienus 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Wesley 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. MrWhipple 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. The Scurvy Eye ^{a note?}I didn't really say much, but my name was here so I felt I should agree in order to allow mediation to take place.(I will help in any way I can) 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, but: I'm not a party to the dispute, rather an ouside editor who's stepped in to help maintain civility. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Like SJ, I don't consider myself a party to any dispute here, but I'm happy to participate in mediation if others would feel that would be helpful. Alai 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Question for committee -- some editors involved in the dispute have taken wikiholiday until this is resovled - should I remove them as an involved party?

• I don't feel I can communicate with bcatt without excessive dramatics or exagerrated interpretations of my comments. Thus I have stopped editing the article for any content for a while. Trödel 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Wikipedians involved in the dispute:

• User:Storm Rider has also taken Wikiholiday until the dispute has been resolved [42]
• User:COGDEN has a history of ceasing editing when a dispute arises - he is also on Wikiholiday since early on in the dispute (7 Feb.) [43], after User:Bcatt told him "Cogden...how on earth is the term catholic not the same as Catholic [''editors note: the second "Catholic" is referring to the Roman Catholic Church'']? This really makes no sense..." [44]
• User:Trevdna was part of the dispute originally, but has left Wikipedia for personal reasons [45] on 16 March.
• User:FyzixFighter has been inactive since 24 Feb.[46], after listing the pro/con nature of sources on the page. [47]

Recently denied requests

These requests have been denied, and will be archived soon.

Machsom Watch

Involved parties

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs)
• Ynhockey (talk · contribs)
• Zeq (talk · contribs)
• Pecher (talk · contribs)
• Heptor (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMachsom_Watch&diff=42934024&oldid=42923140

User talk pages:

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Discussions on article talk page and requestes on user talk page.

Issues to be mediated

• NPOV policy 1: Should the article 1st paragrpah contain both POVs on the issue of Human Rights (as it has to do with Checkpoints and the broader issues of human rights to both Palestinians and Israelis) ?
• NPOV policy 2: Should the controversy be Described ?
• NPOV policy 3: Are quotes from the oragnization own web site should be a source for Wikipedia article ?

Additional issues to be mediated

• To be completed

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.

• Agree. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Pecher ^Talk 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, not interested in participating. I once restored some information [54] Zero removed[55], but it seems that it is back into the article now, even with better wording. As long as he agrees not to remove information again, I'll skip this one. -- Heptor _talk 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I read the discussion and reconsidered. I agree to participate in mediation (To make it clear: I was originally not interested in the article alltogether, not just the mediation part. After reading the talk page, I now think it is worth while anyway) -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Note: As with the above mediation, the previous state of the issues section was unacceptable. Issues must be presented in a bulleted list, without commentary or accusations. The section must be completed in the correct format or the request will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• If the above is no longer relevant - can it be removed and a descision be made ? Thanks. Zeq 07:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• two weeks - what next ? Zeq 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• This request is denied. I don't believe that this request is fruitful.

For the Mediation Committee, Ral315.

Al-Sarafand

Involved parties

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• banned user Alberuni (talk · contribs) who helped zero using anon IP 68.214.35.104
• Zeq (talk · contribs)

User Ramallite was involved but not directly since he was actually a fair 3rd party that asked questions about my edits and received answers after which he did not change the article. I assume that if he still have doubts about accuracy we will hear from him.

Article talk pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Sarafand&diff=42952415&oldid=42788702

User talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZero0000&diff=42934322&oldid=42934214

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

The issue is small and simple. So the steps taken are:

• Review by 3rd party (who asked very good questions about the sources provided)
• Requests (to Zero) that he:

• Avoid reverts and edit wars
• Discuss each of his reverts in talk page of article. ( this is realy a cardinal request, as zero ignore talk too often when he reverts )
• Do not remove relavant sourced content based on judicial process
• Adheer to NPOV policy

Issues to be mediated

• Should the article contain both version about the issue i.e Only the one from the Islamic movment prepective or also to add the fact from the judicial comitee who investigated the issue.

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.

• Agree. [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Note: The previous state of the issues section was unacceptable. Issues must be presented in a bulleted list, without commentary or accusations. The section must be completed in the correct format or the request will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This mediation, having been agreed to by only one party after a two week period, is denied.

For the Mediation Committee, Ral315.