FamilySearch Wiki:Mediation Requests

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dispute resolution
Avoid disputes
Tips to avoid disputes
Mediation Policy
Mediation Committee
Request mediation
Community Council
Editing restrictions
General sanctions

If you are experiencing an editing conflict, you can submit the issue here so that it will be mediated.

Please add a heading for each issue, a description of the conflict, links to the pages in conflict, and links to the user pages of those involved.

Mediation Requests[edit | edit source]

Please detail the concern that needs mediation and include a link to the page where the issue is being discussed:

Navigation boxes England parish pages[edit | edit source]

Myself and User:3plaitt have also disagreed about the need to add navigation boxes on the bottom of England parish pages. User:3plaitt is deleting these boxes. Murphynw 21:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs England parish pages[edit | edit source]

Myself and User:3plaitt have disagreed about the need to add introductory paragraphs on England parish pages, such as Aldingham, Lancashire (see history of page). User:3plaitt has been deleting the paragraphs, which I believe are necessary to (1) explain the purpose of the page, (2) help the page summary display properly in Google search engine results. Attempts to communicate with User:3plaitt have failed. I have inquired on the British floor of the Family History Library and staff do not know the identity of this individual. This individual does not identify him or herself on their User page. Mediation is requested. If at all possible, please contact me by this weekend to let me know I have made this request properly. Thanks! Murphynw 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Difference of Opinion about the content of a historical records page[edit | edit source]


Klk3 18:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the talk page, my opinion is that the participants are still talking with each other and so formal mediation is not yet required. It would be worth to keep an eye on how things develop, in case consensus/agreement is not achieved. --Steve (talk| contribs) 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)