| Revision as of 11:08, 28 April 2011 editPhoenix7777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,565 edits →Dispute specifics: fix a space.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 28 April 2011 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits →Parties' agreement to mediation: agreeNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| #Agree. While its true that there are other forums to take this to, we've already done that, haven't we? We've definitely discussed the issue at NCGN; I feel like we've discussed it at NPOVN, although that may have been a different SI related topic. Is there some reason to work there first before going into mediation, when it's invariably the case that it will come back here eventually anyway? ] (]) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />Addendum: In addition, I think part of the reason this belongs here is because other editors have argued, in essence, that there's a conflict between how the Article Title policy and NPOV interact with regards to this specific case. Personally, as everyone here knows, I don't see a conflict, but I can easily see how those opposed to the current name might feel that any one single noticeboard won't actually solve the matter. ] (]) 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | #Agree. While its true that there are other forums to take this to, we've already done that, haven't we? We've definitely discussed the issue at NCGN; I feel like we've discussed it at NPOVN, although that may have been a different SI related topic. Is there some reason to work there first before going into mediation, when it's invariably the case that it will come back here eventually anyway? ] (]) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)<br />Addendum: In addition, I think part of the reason this belongs here is because other editors have argued, in essence, that there's a conflict between how the Article Title policy and NPOV interact with regards to this specific case. Personally, as everyone here knows, I don't see a conflict, but I can easily see how those opposed to the current name might feel that any one single noticeboard won't actually solve the matter. ] (]) 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| #Agree. I don't expect much from this. Let's see what happen. ―― ] (]) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | #Agree. I don't expect much from this. Let's see what happen. ―― ] (]) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| #Agree. --] (]) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment from the Mediation Committee:''' Now that the ] have been specified, the below conversation is probably redundant so I've collapsed it. I'll notify everybody below of the newly-added issues, then ask them to add their formal response to this request. For the Mediation Committee, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | * '''Comment from the Mediation Committee:''' Now that the ] have been specified, the below conversation is probably redundant so I've collapsed it. I'll notify everybody below of the newly-added issues, then ask them to add their formal response to this request. For the Mediation Committee, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 28 April 2011
|
Please click here to display or hide in-line guidance below. |
Senkaku Islands
| Request for formal mediation | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Senkaku Islands (talk) |
| Submitted | 25 Apr 2011 |
| Mediator | Not yet assigned |
| Status | Awaiting party agreement |
| Notes | None |
Dispute specifics
- Involved users
- Ajl772 (talk · contribs), filing party Note: I am attempting to file this as an uninvolved neutral party.
- Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
- Phead128 (talk · contribs)
- Tenmei (talk · contribs)
- John Smith's (talk · contribs)
- STSC (talk · contribs)
- Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs)
- Benlisquare (talk · contribs)
- Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs)
- Oda Mari (talk · contribs)
- Kusunose (talk · contribs)
- HXL49 (talk · contribs) Note: My apologies to you HWL49. I may have been a bit hasty in adding your name to this list. You may recuse from participating in this particular request. – AJL 07:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Senkaku Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Senkaku Islands dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Previous attempts: (archived)
- 26 October, 2003 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1#Title
- Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 2 Note: Most of Archive 2 deals with the title of the article.
- 18 July 2007 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move
- 1 September 2009 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Page move
- 8 September 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Pinnacle Islands
- 18 July 2007 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move
- 9 September 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move 2
- 14 October 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Controversy and Request for change of name
- 29 October 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Quick poll of involved users
- 23 November 2010 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#What should the title of this article be?
- 24 February 2011 Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#Is the title POV? Note: This thread was recently archived (today). –AJL 07:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- 15 October 2010 Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-14/Senkaku Islands
- Current attempts: (unarchived)
Issues to be mediated
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issue
- Constant disruption of talk page by running around in circles discussing whether or not the title represents a neutral point of view.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Same as above, but within the context of the Senkaku Islands dispute. Note: This addendum was added by Phead128 in the above statement. – AJL 06:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Other additional issues
Parties' agreement to mediation
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. – AJL 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. STSC (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Decline. I have only been involved in one significant dispute of this page, and so will not be of much use nor qualified to comment. Moreover, who wonders who entrenched and nasty this could be... HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Response: My apologies to you HWL49. I may have been a bit hasty in adding your name to this list. You may recuse from participating in this particular request. – AJL 07:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline. As per my intentions to maintain my WP:COOL and keep the peace, I am reluctant to engage in discussion on contentious issues for the time being. Hence, I will keep my distance from this particular topic.Never mind, just realised this was a RfM, and a little input can't hurt. Even though my involvement in the subject in recent times is minimal, I'll participate anyway. Agreeing. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)- Agree. John Smith's (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Phead128 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Though I'm not fully convinced this is the place to talk about the matter. It might be WP:NCGN. Oda Mari (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. While its true that there are other forums to take this to, we've already done that, haven't we? We've definitely discussed the issue at NCGN; I feel like we've discussed it at NPOVN, although that may have been a different SI related topic. Is there some reason to work there first before going into mediation, when it's invariably the case that it will come back here eventually anyway? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: In addition, I think part of the reason this belongs here is because other editors have argued, in essence, that there's a conflict between how the Article Title policy and NPOV interact with regards to this specific case. Personally, as everyone here knows, I don't see a conflict, but I can easily see how those opposed to the current name might feel that any one single noticeboard won't actually solve the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) - Agree. I don't expect much from this. Let's see what happen. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from the Mediation Committee: Now that the #Issues to be mediated have been specified, the below conversation is probably redundant so I've collapsed it. I'll notify everybody below of the newly-added issues, then ask them to add their formal response to this request. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
| Peripheral and earlier discussion. |
|---|
|
Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
- Request to filing party: Please specify what this dispute is about by completing the #Issues to be mediated section. Thank you. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)