What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
The editors need to respect BLP and stop violating
Editors need to stop attacking SqueakBox for enforcing BLP,. just because they dont like it
Note: the above list is from Squeakbox's user page, describing articles he intends to address. Not all are necessarily in dispute, although we will not know until Squeakbox decides to edit them or announce what his plans are. The RfC discussion concerning lists is broader in scope, applying to all list articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Additional issues (added by other parties)
Will Squeakbox agree to honor the portion of the closing findings of the recent RfC on BLP that reads: editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful.
If the community objects to any mass BLP edits of Squeakbox as unhelpful, will Squeakbox respect the consensus of the community on the matter rather than edit warring and accusing other editors of BLP violations, among other things?
Will Squeakbox respect the consensus of the community on whether, and how, to deal with sourcing on Wikipedia's many lists of people?
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Refuse this nonsense. I have not edited any of the above articles except List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, weeks ago, an article which raised a large disagreement between editors and a large discussion (see relevant talk page and ANI discussion). Both the related AfD discussion and the RFC are now closed. I have no idea why my name was included and on what I would actually need a mediation with SqueakBox. He seems do not want drop the stick and keeping on battle, I have zero interest in playing this game. --Cavarrone 22:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - As well. This is more of a personal issue for Squeak than it is a Wikipedia issue. He was found to be disruptive in his "edits" and used BLP as his blanket defense. Regardless of how many times others have said that his choice of tactics or editing methods are counterproductive to the communal efforts of the site, he won't listen. I agree with the other editors. Squeak, please move on. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - if broadened to include SqueakBox's conduct per the issues I added above, and if SqueakBox acknowledges that he (?_ is open to doing so. Those are the real issues here. I have no problem agreeing upfront that I will not knowingly commit BLP violations, attack SqueakBox for enforcing BLP, or attacking SqueakBox because I dislike BLP. I have done none of those things, so there is nothing to stop, but I am willing to pledge this on an ongoing basis if Squeakbox is willing, this being mediation, to honor the will of the community regarding mass content edits and some attendant behavioral issues. In fact, if everyone could address this in an openminded way intending to reach an accord on how to approach these BLP articles, there does not have to be a lingering dispute. The bigger picture of what if anything to do about the thousands or tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that have lists of people names in them is a bigger issue that cannot be decided by several editors on a mediation page. We can just agree to keep things copacetic pending a broader community decision. On the other hand, if SqueakBox refuses to consider his(?) own acts and this is supposed to be a mediation to prove that everyone else is wrong and SqueakBox is right — which may be the reason other are refusing to mediate Squeakbox's accusatory mediation questions standing alone — then it is SqueakBox, not the rest of us, who is refusing to try to work this out. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikidemon, as far as I understand it mediation absolutely means that you and indeed any participants also get a chance to air their grievances. I have included my grievances, and any editor who agrees to mediation should also do the same. It is a real shame that the other editors are not willing to go to mediation but I guess it still has value even if it is only you that agrees and the fact that you have agreed is good. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to participate and exhibit good faith during the mediation process, please do not try to force this sort of result,[1] which I have reverted, while the process is underway. Wait until mediation reaches a conclusion before editing according to your favored version. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Forum shopping by SqueakBox to arm-twist this issue the way he wants, despite the RfC consensus. The editor should be banned for continuous disruption, and refusal to abide to consensus - which can and should be discussed at WP:AN/I. WP:HEAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE apply.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Recommend rejection: Majority of opponents decline mediation (and one more conditions acceptance on inclusion of conduct issues which we do not handle here, so is in effect also a decline). — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)[reply]
