Involved parties

1. Pmanderson (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Shoreranger (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Alexander Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Attempted third party mediation by User:Gregalton who is taking the unfortunate ground that if someone, somewhere, has called Hamilton something, that is sufficient to include it in the lead.

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.

• An effort to maintain the first paragraph saying that Hamilton was first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, lawyer, Founding Father, American politician, leading statesman, political economist, financier, and political theorist. This long list is partially peacockery, largely redundant (both financier and political economist, for example, refer to his activities as Secretary of the Treasury), and in part unfounded (the article supplies no evidence of activity as a politician; he was unlike the other men of his generation in receiving all his offices as patronage.)

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.

• References have been provided in each case to support use of the terms involved, and any good faith effort to determine so would find as such. For a few simple examples in the case of "politician", see West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2., Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America, By Thomas Fleming: "...to the mature Hamilton, especially in the 1790s, when he had been President George Washington's secretary of the treasury, the young nation's most influential politician. The objection seems to be on the basis that Hamilton did not hold elective office, a narrow and contrived definition not supported by other sources, such as Merriam Webster: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government; 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession, or [1] - "a person actively engaged in politics, esp. party politics, professionally or otherwise." Since Hamilton was the first secretary of the Treasury and the founder of one of the first political parties, he certainly qualifies. Not to mention author of some of the Federalist papers, a highly political involvement. Not to mention that he was elected by New York to represent at the constitutional congress (granted, an election by a legislature, not public election, but this contention that only those elected by public elections qualify as politicians is still absurdly narrow). The claim that all his positions were received as "patronage" is irrelevant (and dubious).--Gregalton (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Same for political economist: sources have been provided that states that Hamilton was "America’s first important political economist". This is NYU's school of political economy, named after Hamilton. See also the article American School (economics): "The American School of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton." (Note I am not using this as the only source, but they are numerous). This is far from taking the position (as alleged above) that I have said as long as "someone, somewhere" used these terms to describe him, we should use it in the article. These are reliable sources, and far from undue. Compare this to the rather tortured point made on the talk page that someone, somewhere might have called him a murderer (which would be undue because unsupported by reliable sources). The sources used have been reliable sources - period.--Gregalton (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• As for the point that the activities "overlap" and are hence redundant, this is an argument that has not been supported by any source. I disagree with the point, but first and foremost, the discussion should be based on sources provided, and the onus is on the editor that wishes to contradict reliable sources to provide. I see the activities and the terms used distinctly, but I don't need to argue that: sources both notable and reliable have been provided to support the contention, each of which should be sufficient to support inclusion in the lead.--Gregalton (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Other editors have questioned whether all of these points should be included in the lead. I don't have religion on that point, which is more one of style, but should be considered separately from the points above, which throw doubt on the accuracy of the terms. I would, however, support maintaining them as accurate, significant, and supported by reliable sources. The oft-repeated point about "peacockery" simply should not apply if sources support. Please note that I, and other editors, have allowed that "leading" statesman may not be necessary.--Gregalton (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• in addition to my points above, note that the claims made are also wrong: Hamilton was elected any assemblyman in 1786. See Chernow, page 221. He also participated in founding the Bank of New York before he became Treasury Secretary, and his activities as financier can therefore be said to be distinct. See Chernow, pp. 199 and on.Gregalton (can't sign properly now).

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.

1. Agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Request proxy. I have not had the time to indulge in this, and will not for some time. I ask that Gregalton, who has already taken positions that have matched mine on every point that I have been able to discern in regard to this, be permitted to mediate my position/s. Shoreranger (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
   • If anything is done about this, let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be safe, I think it'd be best to just wait until Shoreranger has time, then it can be handled. Wizardman 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Wizardman 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Example (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Example (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

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.

• Some users claim that kolo is descended from the serbian culture only, what isnot true in my opinion.
• Issue 2

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

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.

1. Agree. Cantabo07 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, per my comments on User talk:Cantabo07. From the information provided, there appears to be very little attempt at prior dispute resolution for this editorial conflict; attention is directed at third opinions, requests for comment, and informal mediation, all of which are available to help in the resolution of editorial disputes. Additionally, no parties were listed in this mediation cases (that is, editors involved), and no concise issues provided (although I suspect there are some, buried somewhere).

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Bstone (talk · contribs), filing party
2. IZAK (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Almost every article the two have been mutual involved with

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Informal mediation [2]
• RFCU [3]

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.

• I feel that IZAK and I have many personal and professional issues which very much require formal mediation in order to work them out. A full list of these can be brought forth at the appropriate stage when the case is accepted.
• Issue 2

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

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.

1. Agree. Bstone (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Note. Ryan Postlethwaite has indicated that he wishes to mediate this case notwithstanding the conduct issues involved. This case will be accepted should the second party agree to proceed.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected - IZAK has made it clear that he is not willing to accept me as a mediator, and given this was outside the general remit of formal mediation given no previous attempts of dispute resolution have been attempted, no other mediators are willing to take this case so it is to be formally rejected. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Wikiality123 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Naadapriya (talk · contribs)
3. John Carter (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Hogenakkal Falls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Extensively discussed
• Later I sought third party comments Walton One and John Carter, unfortunately User Walton One had been busy otherwise as per his message to me here
• Another third party was SheffieldSteel who joined us after presiding over an AN/I filed against me on this issue. He had been on this issue ever since.
• RfC was initiated since the dispute didn't seem to end.

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.

Issues removed by me since was pointed out that mediation can deal with content dispute alone. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Firstly on the jurisdiction of the falls:

The two competing versions are shown in diff ->[6]

One party (includes me and from now on I shall state this as me in singular rather than talking for everyone) state that the waterfalls' jurisdiction falls in the state of Tamil Nadu and the falls lie along the border with the state of Karnataka. Where as Naadapriya claims that the falls lies in both states, as in on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

My stance is based on references of which the most reliable to the context that I could find was from the Law Ministry, Government of India [7].In the reference if you move to the geography section and note points 6.1 c and d, it would state

(c) At Sivasamudram, the river dips by about 97m. in a series of falls and rapids and, after flowing through a very narrow gorge, continues its East-ward journey and forms the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for a distance of about 64km. Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu.

(d) In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir. It leaves the Eastern Ghats below Mettur and is joined by Bhavani, about 45 km. downstream. This important tributary then turns West-ward in the Nilgiri District of Tamil Nadu and takes a detour in Kerala territory for about 38 km and turns back to Tamil Nadu, before joining the main river. Cauvery thereunder takes a more Easterly course there and is joined by Noyil, and then by Amaravathy.

• Second that there is a ongoing dispute about the jurisdiction of the border

There is no dispute about the jurisdiction of the waterfalls since Karnataka's government run Karnataka State Tourism Developement Corporation [8] on it website states Hogenakal Falls is a beautiful water falls in the neighboring state of Tamilnadu.... Hence there can be no two views that Karnataka does not claim over the jurisdiction of the waterfalls. Not just the government sites, but also the academic world always knew that this falls lies in Tamil Nadu [9] [10] [11] (page 13 of this book) . Nevertheless there is a dispute in border in the area close to the falls, where an island is being disputed by the two states. [12] [13] Several attempts had been made by me (and a few others, who may by their own will can chose either or not to join themselves in this mediation) to point this out, but the user seems not to accept that and accuses me (not talking for others here) of POV bias. As mentioned earlier the issue has crossed third party commentary and RfC. I had tried to take this issue to the user's talk page before the third party commentary (as recommended in dispute resolution).

• Third a logic raised by Naadapriya that river has border would mean that it is shared by both states.[14] [15]

The above could be true if the border runs through the middle of the river or the falls as in Niagara Falls the falls itself and not the cities but in Hogenakkal the border runs through the river as can be seen here. Id est the map will show the river entering Karnataka after it had passed through the falls.

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

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.

1. Agree. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Disagree Naadapriya (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Comment. The issues to be mediated are not of a content nature. However, I, as a mediator, believe that issues can be salvaged from this. I respectfully request that this case is not immediately rejected, until such times as I can contact the filing editor and workshop on this matter. Anthøny 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Life.temp, filing party
2. Colin4C
3. Marskell
4. Equazcion

Articles involved

Anti-Americanism

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Village Pump [16].
• NPOV Noticeboard [17].
• Informal mediation [18].
• Editor Assistance [19].
• Third Opinion [20]

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.

• Issue 1: Is it neutral to label people, groups, nations, cultures as anti-American who do not label themselves that way.
• Issue 2: Does the article give undue weight to the position that labelling things anti-American is meaningful, not propaganda
• Issue 3: Does the article give undue weight to accusations of anti-Americanism

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

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.

1. Agree. Life.temp (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Refuse. More time wasting trollery. Marskell (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. rapido (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Xasha (talk · contribs)
3. Illythr (talk · contribs)
4. Mikkalai (talk · contribs)
5. Qu90 (talk · contribs)
6. Erdeniss (talk · contribs)
7. Dc76 (talk · contribs)
8. Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs)
9. TSO1D (talk · contribs)
10. Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
11. Vecrumba (talk · contribs)
12. Thedagomar (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Bender, Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:Bender, Moldova#Requested_move
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-17 Bender, Moldova

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.

• The name of the article (originally between Tighina and Bender, Moldova).
• Cabal has stalled - Bender proponents deny the usage of the name Tighina, this has prevented the article name being changed to Bender (Tighina) which should otherwise be mutually acceptable.

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

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.

1. Agree. Rapido (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Lyrl (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Whistling42 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Cervical cap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• The parties have engaged in extensive discussion since 31 March 2008
• A Third Opinion was requested: request, third opinion, involved party response
• A Request for Comment was filed: filing, talk page section
• Requests for outside opinions were made at the Doctor's Mess: first request, talk page section, second request, talk page section

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.

• Whether the Lea's Shield and cervical cap articles should be merged
• Whether the "cervical cap" article should completely separate discussion of devices that are currently available from devices that have been recently discontinued (e.g. list manufactured sizes of discontinued devices in "history", list manufactured sizes of currently available devices in "current"), or group information by topic (e.g. discuss typical sizes of a variety of recently available devices in a "types" or similar section)
• Which devices are currently available, and how the article should present this information
• How much information on recently discontinued devices to include in the article
• What image (if any) to put in the infobox
• For which devices to include other information in the infobox
• Whether the information in the "acceptability" section is presented from a NPOV
• Which links to include and which to exclude from the "external links" section

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

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.

1. Agree. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Shell ^babelfish 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Ledboots (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Generation X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-16_Generation_X (Fist request by me was ignored by other party; second attempt left unresolved.)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_X (Attempts to resolve on discussion page failed.)

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.

• Issue 1 - Return the article prior to Cumulus Clouds' extensive and mostly unsubstantiated (including false claims of trivia and lack of sourcing) deletions, including embedded list (preferable to prose) and supporting content containing primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
• Issue 2

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

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.

1. Agree. Ledboots (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Disagree, per my comments on the talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Wizardman 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• History2007 (talk · contribs)
• Carlaude (talk · contribs)
• John Carter (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

Blessed Virgin Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• I listed the issue on the Administrator's Notice Board, asking for help: [21]

Some responses were provided by administrators. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I repeatedly asked for and promoted discussion of article content and/or Wikipedia policy. --Carlaude (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Very long and unending debate about the existence of consensus
• Time and energy wasted on the same issue in a cyclic debate
• Content of article in question
• I even suggested that I could write a bot to respond to the cyclic comments. History2007 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

• Repeatedly reverting all User:Carlaude content & edits without objections to the content and without giving particular objections.
• Failure to state what presumed consensus would be consensus of; failure to state what actions violated this presumed consensus.

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.

1. Agree. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. Carlaude (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

• Remark. The issues to be mediated are not very clear, and a proportion of them appear to be issues over editor conduct, rather than over article content. My advice to the filing party, is to restructure the issues to be mediated, such that they are focussed on article content issues; that is, content of an article over which a disagreement is taking place (e.g., whether the content should be included or not; whether the content belongs in the lead; et cetera). The parties are reminded that formal mediation is only used to resolve encyclopedia content disputes, rather than disputes over editorial conduct. Please review the guide to filing a case and the Mediation policy for further information. Anthøny 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reject. The issues presented are not appropriate for formal mediation. Editorial conduct issues should be addressed through appropriate dispute resolution, such as requests for comment or wikiquette alerts. For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Hilmarc (talk · contribs), filing party
2. *jb (talk · contribs)
3. Mangwanani (talk · contribs)
4. Dynino (talk · contribs)
5. DS (talk · contribs)
6. Shiku (talk · contribs)
7. JacyR (talk · contribs)
8. RWRM (talk · contribs)
9. Jpool (talk · contribs)
10. Bakbathy (talk · contribs)
11. TheBlacklist (talk · contribs)
12. Xdamr (talk · contribs)
13. Bluelist (talk · contribs)
14. Bnynms (talk · contribs)
15. Michael (talk · contribs)
16. 88.105.173.23 (talk · contribs)
17. Deon Steyn (talk · contribs)
18. 121.222.128.116 (talk · contribs)
19. Perpicacite (talk · contribs)
20. Wizzy (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Rhodesian Bush War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk:Rhodesian Bush War
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07 Rhodesian Bush War

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1:The title of the article. 'Rhodesian Bush War,' or 'Third Chimurenga,' or 'Zimbabwean War of Liberation'?

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.

1. Agree. Hilmarc (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Remark. It appears that this case's respective attempt at informal mediation (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07 Rhodesian Bush War) is still underway, and has not been closed at unsuccessful. I hesitate at accepting this case when a parallel attempt at dispute resolution has not yet been exhausted: it's important to give all the stages a chance to "work", rather than dropping things and moving on prematurely. Party thoughts on this remark are welcome at this page. Anthøny 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reject, parties did not agree to mediation within seven days.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

1. Russavia (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Huaiwei (talk · contribs)
3. Jpatokal (talk · contribs)
4. Vegaswikian (talk · contribs)
5. Butterfly0fdoom (talk · contribs)
6. Hawaiian717 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Singapore Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Singapore Airlines fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines
• Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company....here_we_go_again.
• Talk:Singapore Airlines#Subsidiary --> Parent --> Subsidiary?
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_2#Concensus_needed_for_inclusion_of_codeshare_destinations_in_articles
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_3#Tables_with_flight_numbers_by_destination
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_3#Aircraft tail numbers in fleet tables
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_3#Consensus to not include tail numbers and flight numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_3#Consensus reached on several issues

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.

• Temasek Holdings is added as the parent company of Singapore Airlines, along with multiple, reliable, verifiable sources, which is removed, and has been continually removed since 12 months ago.
• The inclusion of lists of flight numbers has been discussed at WP:AIRLINES which an editor refuses to recognise that concensus has been reached for its removal and continually adds back in this list.
• There is concensus on WP:AIRLINES that articles should not list destinations covered by codeshare agreements, but only the airlines with which the airline has codeshare agreements with. When removed, this is reverted.
• There is concensus on WP:AIRLINES that sprawling lists of aircraft registrations, as can be seen at Singapore Airlines fleet, are more aircraft-spotter orientated, and are not encyclopaedic so not suitable for Wikipedia. There is agreeance within the project that some fleets are notable and may require additional information to be provided (such as Western Pacific Airlines), but concensus is that Singapore Airlines does not have a notable fleet which requires sprawling lists.

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

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.

1. Agree. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Agree. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Agree. Jpatokal (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Agree. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Disagree. --Huaiwei (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]