Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 06:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: middle-ground compromise agreed by majority of participants; inactivity, stalemate, and incivility making chance for greater agreement improbable.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 00:25, May 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Articles involved

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

  • Did a lot of discussing on the talk page (initiated by different users), here,
  • Got a third opinion here.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Should the article be included in Category:Mass graves?
  • Should the article be renamed from "Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani" to "Mass graves at Chemmani"?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

None at this time

[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.
  1. Agree Watchdogb 00:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree Taprobanus 11:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree Lustead 15:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree Shunpiker 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. AgreeIwazaki 会話。討論 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to Tariqabjotu's offer

Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), an experienced administrator and user, has expressed an offer to take this case as a possible lead-up to a nomination to join the Mediation Committee. However, as Tariqabjotu is not a member of the Committee at present, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Tariqabjotu mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above. Voting will last seven days, from June 10 (ie. closes on June 17).

I apologise for the delay in action on this case. Due to absences by a number of the members of the Committee, there has been a backlog. Please note that if consent isn't given by all parties above within seven days, then you will have to wait for a Committee mediator, which could take a fair while at the present rate. On all accounts, I encourage you to take Tariqabjotu's offer, however the choice is, of course, yours.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Agree Watchdogb 15:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree -- Shunpiker 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree -- Lustead 12:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree --Taprobanus 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree --Iwazaki 10:01, June 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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, Daniel 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)