User of British versus Standard American English in article Bubblegum. Edit warring by User: Bart133 and ineffective consensus participation.
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)
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.
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.
The rudeness that has been shown by the unscrupulous editors
Reject. The parties do not agree to this mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny ✉ 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{Darren Meade bodybuilder}}
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
User of British versus Standard American English in article Bubblegum. Edit warring by User: Bart133 and ineffective consensus participation.
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)
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.
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.
The rudeness that has been shown by the unscrupulous editors
Reject. The parties do not agree to this mediation.
For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny ✉ 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{Darren Meade bodybuilder}}
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)
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)
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)
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
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)