Involved parties

• Bdean1963 (talk · contribs)
• Messhermit (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• War of the Pacific

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Inclusion of recent maritime dispute between Peru and Chile in essay on the War of the Pacific

Additional issues to be mediated

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. --User:Bdean1963 01:10 29 January 2007

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.

• Reject: All the parties did not indicate their acceptance within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• travb (talk · contribs)
• Mobile 01 (talk · contribs)
• RebelAt (talk · contribs)
• Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs)
• Bobblehead (talk · contribs)
• Morton_devonshire (talk · contribs)
• Cls14 (talk · contribs)
• The following 3 editors have been included here as representation from the Project Japan, these 3 editors deal mainly with Japanese History and Corporations and are suitably qualified to offer opinion on the merging of a Japanese and American company history. As they have not responded to the invitation, I have removed them from this Mediation.
  • Leaders100 (talk · contribs)
  • Ekun (talk · contribs)
  • Terrorific (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
• Bridgestone - currently part of WikiProject_Japan
• Firestone Liberian controversy

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:Third opinion [1]
  • Response: User_talk:Travb#Wikipedia:Third_opinion -
  • User_talk:Travb#User:Athaenara_Wikipedia:Third_opinion
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bridgestone_and_Firestone
• Conversation on Firestone
• Merge discussion on Bridgestone talk page
• Merge discussion on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
• Discusion underway with several of the editors mentioned above on the Firestone talk page. Sand Box article set up to address POV issues and Generally tidy and improve a messy article.

Issues to be mediated

• Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone?
  • Should the Firestone page be merged into the Bridgestone page?
  • Should the 1900-1988 History of Firestone in USA be Merged into the history of Bridgestone Corporation Japan.
• Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split?
  • Does the Liberian Workers Claim against Firestone deserve to have it's own expanded article.
  • Is it sufficient to paragraph the Liberian issue in the Firestone article and reference out to the split.
• What is a NPOV source?
• Should Terrorific (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) less than 13 edits on wikipedia, Ekun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3 edits on wiipedia, Leaders100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who never edited the Firestone or Bridgestone page and hasn't edited wikipedia since 12 September 2006, be a part of this mediation?

Additional issues to be mediated

• Should the WWW.STOPFIRESTONE.COM site be used as a reference.

(This site has been removed, and it is no longer an issue.)

• Additional issue 2

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. Travb (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mobile 01^Talk 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Agree.[reply]
4. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Agree[reply]
5.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. --Bobblehead 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree, although unsure about the process (have read help page but not sure what happens from here!) Cls14 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Reject: All the parties are not demonstrating good-faith interest in mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Involved parties

• HonourableSchoolboy (talk · contribs)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Free Trade
• Laissez-faire

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

None other than back and forth on user talk pages between the two editors.

Issues to be mediated

• Will Beback claims that edits made to these articles by HonourableSchoolboy reflect "LaRouche concepts" and "LaRouche-derived theories." He threatens to ban HonourableSchoolboy unless he stops editing articles on economics and edits only articles on "your hometown, favorite team, or other neutral subjects." HonourableSchoolboy responds by saying that his edits are not "LaRouche concepts" or "LaRouche-derived theories," but instead, generally known and accepted historical and current events matters, with good sources.

Mediation cannot overturn ArbCom rulings, which I was enforcing. I don't see any issues suitable for mediation. -Will Beback · † · 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues to be mediated

None.

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. HonourableSchoolboy 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. -Will Beback · † · 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Reject: Parties do not agree to medaite.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Aviper2k7 (talk · contribs)
• Soxrock (talk · contribs)
• Manningmbd (talk · contribs)
• Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) (possibly?)

Articles involved

• Green Bay Packers
• 2007 Green Bay Packers season
• 2006 Green Bay Packers season
• 2005 Green Bay Packers season
• 2003 Green Bay Packers season
• 2004 Green Bay Packers season
• 1996 Green Bay Packers season
• 1989 Green Bay Packers season
• 1967 Green Bay Packers season
• 1966 Green Bay Packers season
• Indianapolis Colts
• 2003 Indianapolis Colts season
• 2004 Indianapolis Colts season
• 2005 Indianapolis Colts season
• 2006 Indianapolis Colts season
• 2007 Indianapolis Colts season

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Discussion in both talk pages: User talk:Soxrock and User talk:Aviper2k7
• Discussion on Talk:Green Bay Packers

Issues to be mediated

• User Soxrock uploaded larger versions of sports logos on various pages, such as: Green Bay Packers and Indianapolis Colts. The images were very large, which violated WP:FUC #3. The images were also duplicates. For instance, the logo Image:GreenBayPackers_100.png is a duplicate of Image:GreenBayPackers_1000.png. The original (the first one) was used on nine articles and the second was not used at all. User Aviper2k7 tagged the second image as speedy as it was a duplicate and removed it from the page. User Soxrox took all of the first images off of every article and replaced it with the second and resized the image down.

Should the original smaller image be used as it is low-resolution and fits WP:FUC fine while the other image may be too large and not-needed, or should the second image be used because it may look nicer and be needed in the articles, while still not violating WP:FUC?

Additional issues to be mediated

• WP:FUC- How big does a logo have to be before it violates Fair Use? If an image is small enough and looks fine in the mainspace, does it need to be bigger?

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--++aviper2k7++ 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
2. Agree--Manningmbd 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree because I feel that the details of this dispute is beyond the scope of the Mediation Committee. The ultimate goal here is trying to enforce an official Wikipedia policy here, specifically fair use criteria rule #3. Thus, a resolution to this dispute should in some way be binding - something the mediation committee cannot do alone. For the past year, there have been various discussions on Wikipedia talk:Fair use regarding the central question "How big does a logo have to be before it violates Fair Use?" and there yet has been a consensus on there as to the specifics. Thus, I have only reverted those images of Soxrock's that exceed around 500px solely because they take up most of the screen on my 800x600 monitor. But because there is no consensus on the central fair use question, I have been abstaining from acting on 400px images because of how they appear on my other computer's widescreen monitor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Reject: All the parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Cle0patr4 (talk · contribs)
• 69.203.12.73 (talk · contribs)
• 66.108.144.31 (talk · contribs)
• Sean D Martin (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Stephanie Adams

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Sean Martin should be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article due to conflict of interest.
• Sean Martin should be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article due to repeated sneaky vandalism.
• Sean Martin made inappropriate personal and derogatory comments about the subject matter (Stephanie Adams) therefore causing further conflict of interest and should be banned from editing.

This request for mediation has been rejected. However, since this page remains available a few items should be clarified.

• Sean Martin has not done any sneaky vandalism. All of his edits have been signed and accompanied with clear explanations for the change.
• None of the comments against Sean Martin have been signed.
• Many of the comments against Sean Martin have come IPs in the same Verizon access pool in NYC Manhattan. This should be noted when considering whether there is actually just one person objecting.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Sean Martin made personal attacks against users and even included a personal attack on the subject matter (Stephanie Adams) and should be banned from Wikipedia.
• Sean Martin made legal threats to the subject matter (Stephanie Adams) even though she is the subject and not directly involved in the dispute and should be banned from Wikipedia.

This request for mediation has been rejected. However, since this page remains available a few items should be clarified.

• Sean Martin has been personally attacked and all IPs used to do so should be banned from Wikipedia.
• The person asking for this mediation has posted false information about Sean Martin and should be banned form Wikipedia.
• Sean Martin has been personally attacked by an anonymous editor who uses an IP traced to www.goddessy.com, Stephanie Adams' own website. Any IP associated with her website should be banned from editing.
• Sean Martin removed any suggestion of legal action the instant it was pointed out that such was against Wikipedia policy.

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. Cle0patr4 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. 69.203.12.73 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, Mediation is not the place to decide on banning of users.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• 2ct7 (talk · contribs)
• SomeHuman (talk · contribs)

WP:AMA Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) Cocoaguy (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Humanism

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 2ct7 v. SomeHuman Mediation Cabal
• Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/2ct7 AMA case

Issues to be mediated

• To find whom is more at falt 2ct7 or SomeHuman
• To find a way that 2ct7 & SomeHuman can fix Humanism

Additional issues to be mediated

• To find if the AMA did enough
• To find other parties involved

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.
2. Agree.
3. Decline. Reasons: having cooperated before (the AMA & M. Cabal), without any indication of what has been investigated about the case, a totally unargumented "I feel both parties to be at fault" was not informative. I am not interested to find out any of the "issues to be mediated": who is more at "falt" is irrelevant and I do not recognize to be at fault. It assumes the Humanism article to be in need of a fix; an article is not to be a compromise between editors, there are Wikipedia standards that editors are supposed to follow. Thus for mediation to be an option, the issues need to be rephrased so that the outcome depends on the findings of the mediation committee. — SomeHuman 8 Feb2007 06:11 (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.

• Reject: All the parties do not agree to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs)
• Elonka (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• Halibutt (talk · contribs)
• Dr. Dan (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs)
• Beaumont (talk · contribs)
• Appleseed (talk · contribs)
• calgacus (talk · contribs)
• incomplete

Articles involved

• Jogaila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Most of the archives involved are linked from its talk page.
• See also the history/logs of:
  • Władysław II Jagiełło (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Vladislav II of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Wladislaw II of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Jogaila of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Jogaila (Władysław II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ladislaus Jagiello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ladislaus Jagiello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • and perhaps others which cannot be determined due to the deletion of article histories.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Article RfC submitted 25 October
• Possibly related user-conduct RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt
• Possibly related mediation cabal request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution
• incomplete

Issues to be mediated

• Naming of the Jogaila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The article has been moved in excess of ten times in the past year, generally without an overwhelming consensus. The current location is the result of an approval poll begun on 25 June, 2006, (archived here), whose validity has been disputed.
• Requested moves were opened on: 13 April 2006; 7 June 2006; 8 June 2006; unofficial straw poll on 12 June 2006; approval poll 25 June 2006; 27 July 2006; 24 October 2006; and a requested move discussion is in progress at the time of writing.
• At least one poll was disrupted by the article being moved during the debate. At least one poll was marred by sockpuppetry as noted here. Accusations of sockpuppetry have inevitably been made in other cases. Accusations of vote-stacking are routine.
• Editors are aware of the multiple naming guidelines which might be relevant, including Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), and all of these have been cited in requested move debates.

Additional issues to be mediated

• None.

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. --Elonka 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. //Halibutt 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. --Beaumont (@) 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Appleseed (Talk) 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Reject: All the parties did not indicate their acceptance within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• MarphyBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I believe I just asked you to refrain from adding complete and utter nonsense to this discussion, a simple request which would make everything easier for everyone.
• Iamstillhiro1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Articles involved

• Talk:Ermac

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

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.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, does not show any issues to mediate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• --Sikh-history 10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Articles involved

• Prohibitions in Sikhism

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Meat is not prohibited in Sikhism
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

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.--Sikh-history 10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, parties did not agree to mediation within the timeframe.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Example

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• (commentator) I object to the 1270 character deletion on Roy Masters (commentator) Please put it back into the discussion page so sources can be added otherwise more than an hours work is lost Thank you. Larry R. Holmgren 03:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

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.
2. Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Rejected, improperly filed and no users listed for dispute.

For the Mediation Committee ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]