The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
NPOV
Relevance
Scholarly source(s)
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.
Whether censoring content should be used to protect the image of an institution
Koala06 (
talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
When is it constructive deletion, when is it censorship of unpopular speech
Koala06 (
talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
who gets to decide what is and isn't "relevant" in Wiki articles
Koala06 (
talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Using "mediation invites" to people not involved in disputes to create a gang-up mentality at article discussions
Koala06 (
talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree to take this case, though I am not a formal member of the Mediation Committee, as Ryan states below. MBisanztalk 06:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Parties' agreement to MBisanz
MBisanz(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), an administrator, has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as MBisanz is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a
RfM.
As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to MBisanz mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
NPOV
Relevance
Scholarly source(s)
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.
Whether censoring content should be used to protect the image of an institution
Koala06 (
talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
When is it constructive deletion, when is it censorship of unpopular speech
Koala06 (
talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
who gets to decide what is and isn't "relevant" in Wiki articles
Koala06 (
talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Using "mediation invites" to people not involved in disputes to create a gang-up mentality at article discussions
Koala06 (
talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree to take this case, though I am not a formal member of the Mediation Committee, as Ryan states below. MBisanztalk 06:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Parties' agreement to MBisanz
MBisanz(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), an administrator, has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as MBisanz is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a
RfM.
As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to MBisanz mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.