Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Requests for mediation is the second-last step in dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Requests for mediation is carried out by members of the Mediation Committee, and is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content. Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes.
Before requesting formal mediation, parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected by a member of the Mediation Committee with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Requests for mediation is the penultimate dispute resolution process, and as such prior dispute resolution must have been attempted.
The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance. Parties are expected to watchlist the case page and follow any developments; it is the responsibility of the parties to follow the progress of the mediation.
The Mediation Committee uses and enforces a strict format to all requests, which will be automatically created when the case page name is entered into the input box below. For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see this page. Preliminary acceptance of a case by the Mediation Committee is an indication that all the requirements for mediation have been met at that time, however cases are not assigned to mediators as they have the freedom to mediate cases at their discretion.
|
|
|||
| Unassigned | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| None currently. | |||
| Assigned | |||
| Gilad Shalit | Sunray (talk) | ||
| Kender | Vassyana (talk) | ||
| Peter Yarrow | MBisanz (talk) | ||
| New antisemitism | Seddon (talk) | ||
| Jewish lobby | Shell Kinney (talk) | ||
| On Hold | |||
| None currently. | |||
Contents |
[edit] Instructions
- Requests:
-
- Please read the guide to filing a case and common reasons cases are rejected before filing a request.
- If you have questions about how to file a request, please feel free to ask the Committee Chair.
- Please note that all parties must sign the request within 7 days or the case will be rejected.
- You must:
-
- Have attempted other types of informal dispute resolution — including an article request for comment, a Mediation Cabal case, a third opinion, or similar — before requesting formal mediation.
- Watchlist the case page; if additional information is required, you will be asked there, and expected to respond within the seven day period.
- You must not:
-
- Attempt to hold a debate on this page, as discussions take place after acceptance, not before; if you wish to debate on whether to mediate, please do so on the case's talk page.
- Move or remove any content on the mediation pages under any circumstances; content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee.
[edit] New requests
| New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot1. |
| Do not ever list your case by hand. Instead, use the Mediation request box above. Do not make other, even trivial, changes to this page, or you will break the case management bot. |
[edit] Contras
[edit] Involved parties
- Student7 (talk · contribs), filing party
- Groggy Dice (talk · contribs)
- Annoynmous (talk · contribs), red linked but has user page
- MarkB2 (talk · contribs)
[edit] Articles involved
[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Talk:Contras - attempted discussion on article page
- Template:RFChist list - requested third party comment June 2, no answer, but I don't see what a third party can achieve at this point
- User_talk:Groggy_Dice#Contras - attempted discussion on one editors web page
- User_talk:Annoynmous#Contras - attempted discussion on another editors web page
- Requested intervention by admin - they responded by locking the page June 3 which was good, but no progress
[edit] Issues to be mediated
- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- WP:POV - most editors seem to believe article is biased. This is a general comment. Editors believe that others are slanting their remarks. Disagreement seem to focus around the following two general questions:
- Should the results of the 1985 election be listed? In what way? (Were they completely fair with all sides being given a fair crack at the electorate?)
- Who was enrolled as members of the Contras?:
- Should the Milpistas be listed as a separate section?
- Were many members of the old Guard were involved in forming early groups like the 15th of September Legion"?
- were they Former somozans
- were they mercenaries from argentina or other central american country?
- were they peasants?
- Are all anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front (i.e. Sandinista) groups called "Contras" (automatically)?
- Are there (rogue) military groups that opposed the Sandinistas that should not be called "Contras"?
- Was Jaime Irving Steidel the FDN's field commander?
- Should there be an "atrocities/human rights" section? What should go in it?
- Is the Iran-Contra affair germane to this article? Should it be summarized here?
- How can the Sandinistas be characterized?
- Can they be called "Soviet aligned"?
- WP:Foot - footnotes are infrequently used on disputed material
- WP:RELY - when footnotes are given, editors dispute scholarliness of source. This is a very key point. There are two sources that were debated:
- Robert A Kagan, A Twilight Struggle and
- Timothy C. Brown, The Real Contra War. No current editor seems to have a copy of Brown, but this calls into question all the previous footnotes which can't now be checked by anyone and over which othere editors may have inserted their own opinion. Two editors believe both Brown and Kagan to be "too right wing" and therefore (QED) untrustworthy.
- Is Arturo Cruz, Jr. a reliable source?
- Is Gary Webb a reliable source?
- WP:FAITH - Three editors are not assuming that other editors are doing their best. This and attacking others are preventing any productive discussion.
- WP:ATTACK - Three editors are attacking and responding to each other on the article discussion page. Discussions are not productive.
[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.
- Agree. Student7 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:49, 12 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.
[edit] Rejected requests
[edit] John Howard
-
- Rejected 2 June 2008
[edit] Nakba Day
-
- Rejected 8 June 2008
[edit] Bates method
-
- Rejected 9 June 2008
[edit] Archives
|
|
|||
| Case Archives | |||
|
01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 |
|||
| Rejected Requests | |||
|
01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 |
|||
| Subpages | |||
