Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bates method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bates method

This case has been rejected by the Mediation Committee.
This case will be archived by MediationBot. Do not alter this section or remove this tag.
After a reasonable period, this page will be deleted by an administrator.
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 20:18, June 4, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

  1. Seeyou (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Ronz (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

( Paragraph : Please use descriptive section titles.)

[edit] Issues to be mediated

This request is about the discussionpage of the bates method article.

There are mainly 2 parties involved the skeptics about 3 editors and one advocate me (Seeyou ). The reason for this Requests for mediation is pure censor. Meaning censor of added information for further discussion by Ronz.. See the links below

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=206317205&oldid=206317079


Another important reason is censor of the headers of the paragraphs of the discussionpage.. Some paragraphs contain very valuable objective factual information for further improvement and discussion Information for the current editors and future editors. Since the discussionpage is constantly growing a filter tool will be very helpful to filter the most important topics and find real factual information and arguments.. For an example of an improved header see below :

For further information see the cabalcase below :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01_Bates_method

Atyndall and Seeyou concluded a merge header description and a label to the right would be the perfect solution for Seeyou and Ronz and any other editor.

Ronz refused to discuss with Atyndall. His argument lack of time. From the objective point of view there is really no harm in the labels for certain paragraphs. The question is why does Ronz avoid the discussion. The reason in my opinion is because he has no arguments. His initial statement of non informative has become invalid because of the merge. As long as Ronz can not give a real argument for his removal censor is present.

  • deletion of reviews of the modern bates method
  • deletion of labels to filter the most important issues of the article

[edit] 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.
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

[edit] 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. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Seeyou (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
  • Reject. The issues presented here are not appropriate for formal mediation, in that they are largely complaints over the conduct of an editor. The Mediation Committee does not mediate disputes over conduct issues, but rather attempts to resolve disagreements over the content of articles. Grievances over the conduct of an editor should be directed through more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment.
For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)