Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chikungunya

Chikungunya

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Sathishmls (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Jmh649 (talk · contribs)
3. WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
4. Ian_Furst (talk · contribs)
5. Axl (talk · contribs)
6. LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Chikungunya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Chikungunya

Issues to be mediated

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)

Inclusion of the content - [1] to the Treatment section of the Chikungunya article. The content is verifiable by the source - [2] prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. I have made the content unbiased. The content can be published under ==Treatment== section as per section guidelines. But Users Jmh649, Ian_Furst, Axl and LeadSongDog are opposing the content saying still we need sources, bad primary research and many personal opinions. India is one of the country where Chikungunya is much affected. The content which i am trying to add is the current methods of treatment which the Indian Government is promoting based on the observations of these treatments and as at present, there are no 100% satisfactory treatments available anywhere. There are enough sources to prove these happenings in India.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

This is silly. Consensus to use this source is against you on the talk page. The source you are attempting to use is no good, especially for the content you are attempting to use it for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think mediation is pointless at this stage. The report was authored and published by the "CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA", it was not prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research as claimed, it uses the Wikipedia article itself as a reference and we've discussed at length, in two different forums, it's limitations both technically and as a reliable source. There is strong consensus against the use of this report Ian Furst (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is simple wp:IDHT.We should not be wasting time on this.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 and LeadSongDog, the only question you need to answer now is a simple yes/no one: do you agree to go through the mediation process, or not? There's no need to talk about the source at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

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.

1. Agree. Sathishmls (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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.

• Reject: Lack of agreement of participants to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)