Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kriss Donald

Kriss Donald

Resolved:

Closed due to inactivity of one of the parties. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

view edit delete watch
Filed: 21:14, January 16 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• ldxar1 (talk · contribs)
• Guardian sickness (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Kriss Donald

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=98349221
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Does NPOV applied to "mainstream" issues (covered in the media) require the identification of NPOV with Mainstream Point of View and the exclusion of viewpoints of specialists in academic fields bordering on the topic? Are views of reputable specialists (whose writings pass WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and other criteria) "tiny minority" (in the sense of requiring deletion from articles) if they go against mainstream political and media opinion?
• Should an article which falls to some extent within a particular specialism, and involves claims which are contestable within the specialism, also include comments and links to other articles noting the general controversy within the specialism, and viewpoints of people within the relevant specialism which indicate this controversy's relevance - even if the current status of the specialist coverage is at a low or preliminary level?

Additional issues to be mediated

None listed.

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 signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

1. Agree -Ldxar1 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree Guardian sickness 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the involved parties agree, I will be happy to take this case. To make it clear, I am not a member of the mediation committee, but am hoping to take this case to gain valuable experience and a deeper understanding of mediation through MedCom as part of an application to become a mediator. Could the involved parties please sign below indicating their agreement (or lack of) and their preference towards public or private communication. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chihuahua, given the lenthly discussion and matters of interpritation of policy that will be involved, my inclination would be for a member of the mediation committee to take this case. However, I have not used the system before, and am not sure what the difference will be with yourself instead of someone who is already a member of the committee. Maybe you will let me know what the differences, if any, might be in practice, and get Ldxar's feedback before I make a decision. Thanks.

--Guardian sickness 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a whole lot of difference, really. All mediators follow their own methods, the only difference is that I am not an official member of the mediation committee yet - I am under consideration to become a member and was asked to take on a case, which will be watched by members of the mediation committee. If you prefer to wait until one of the current members is available, I will certainly understand. I will say that I have been an editor for over three years, and have been an administrator for over a year, so my understanding of policy is considerable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for KillerChihuahua to take it on. What we really need is someone with a good knowledge of policy, who can help us sort out this NPOV/tiny minority/mainstream thing which we've reached a deadlock on.

-Ldxar1 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi KillerChihuahua. Thanks for explaning that. I'm also happy for you to take on this case.

--Guardian sickness 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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.