Formal mediation is an advanced stage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Requests for mediation is used by a party to a complex dispute to propose to the Committee and to the other parties of the disagreement that formal mediation be attempted. The Mediation Committee will only consider disagreements over encyclopedia content—rather than user conduct or actions—and that have remained unresolved after undergoing earlier processes of dispute resolution. (Further guidance is given later.) Mediation is a formal but voluntary process which does not impose resolutions to a dispute on the parties (arbitrates or adjudicates) but rather guides the parties through discussions towards a remedy acceptable to all (facilitates). To file a request for mediation, please skip to #To file a request. Mediation is a process which is only workable with a willingness on the part of all involved to participate; as such, after filing a request, every party must indicate his acceptance within seven days on the case page in order for the dispute to be eligible for mediation. For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see this page.
[edit] File a request -
- To file a request for mediation
-
-
-
- Notify all the parties to the case of the Request for mediation (using the text {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote}} or this utility). All parties must agree to the mediation within seven days or it will not be accepted.
- Please consider watchlisting the case page, as a member of the Mediation Committee may put queries to the parties or submit further suggestions.
[edit] New requests | New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot. | | Please don't list your case by hand; the Committee has provided a Mediation request box for convenient listing above. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.) | [edit] 1st Armoured Division (Poland) [edit] Involved parties - Chumchum7 (talk · contribs), filing party
- Piotrus (talk · contribs)
- Poeticbent (talk · contribs)
- Mariaflores1955 (talk · contribs)
- Robert Warren (talk · contribs)
- Bolekpolivka (talk · contribs)
-
- Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.
[edit] Articles involved -
- Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.
[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.
- Issue 1. During World War Two, 1st Armoured Division (Poland) was a unit fighting under Allied High Command against the Germans in Normandy in 1944. Some editors want to put a 'War Crimes' section in the article, based on a book by a credible historian named Stephen Ambrose, which uses hearsay to suggest a Polish murder of German POWs commanded by Walter Model may have taken place at Hill 262 in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket. The editors say two other credible sources seem to support Ambrose's case. No court has ruled that war crimes took place. Other editors have raised WP:REDFLAG and WP:Libel issues (the alleged war criminals may be living persons). A third party have called for a note on the allegations to be included by Wikipedia, without Wikipedia asserting that a war crime took place. Ambrose's allegation itself seems to be verifiable, though (i) I haven't yet seen the passage in which he personally alleges war crimes took place, and (ii) it may be in fact that he is quoting another party as alleging war crimes took place, or (iii) he may be quoting another party alleging that war crimes may have taken place. Conspicuously, the alleged Polish massacre of German POWs took place just days after a verifiable German war crime known as the Wola Massacre of Polish POWs in the Warsaw Uprising, where it is verifiable that Walter Model was in action just two days before he fought the Poles in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket. Editors with a Wikipedia record in Polish military history and editors with a Wikipedia record in German military history are seeing bias in each others' edits. Edit wars have very nearly broken out.
- Issue 2. Please consider that I am aware mediation is a further step beyond Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To explain my rationale calling for mediation: we're on the verge of accusing living people of murder. This requires extremely serious attention in order to rule out any legal risk. This is not just an intellectual debate between editors about content, it is also about Wikipedia's relationship with the law. We should be able to keep our own house in order before provoking a public threat from the likes of Carter-Ruck. Hope that explains my reasoning.
[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. Many things can be said in a book of history. For example, that the soldiers swore to have seen Jesus descend on the battlefield with a rifle, wearing an army uniform. A book of history can say that, but no encyclopedia can. We’re told (with no link to confirm anything) that Ambrose included in his book a statement by a man called Walters who spoke with an unidentified Polish captain (whomever, why a captain) about the alleged atrocities. There’s NO official confirmation by any judicial or military source whatsoever. Even more disturbing is a bizarre reference to an outdated BBC newsbyte spreading false information about Jedwabne (see talk). --Poeticbent talk 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate - All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, 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. Chumchum7 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Poeticbent talk 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Robert Warren (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
[edit] Andrew Mango  | - This case has been rejected by the Mediation Committee.
This case will soon be archived by MediationBot. Please do not alter this section or remove this tag.
(After a reasonable period, this page will be deleted by an administrator.) | [edit] Involved parties - Kansas Bear (talk · contribs),
- Toddintr (talk · contribs)
-
- Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.
[edit] Articles involved -
- Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.
[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.
- That Constantinople is historically accurate name of the city until 1930. Turkish Postal Law itself is used to indicate the change of name for the city.
- Andrew Mango is 1)Not a historian, 2)Is a writer intent on selling books within Turkey, therefore uses the historically incorrect name of "Istanbul" to garner sales.
[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 within seven days, 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Todd (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
- Decline. - Formal mediation is the final stage in content dispute resolution. Please try a content request for comment or informal mediation first.
- For the Mediation Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Recently rejected requests - Requests that have been recently rejected by the Committee will be linked below. All rejected cases are eventually moved to a separate archive, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archives (under "Rejected requests").
[edit] Integral economics -
[edit] Siouxsie Sioux -
[edit] Behringer -
[edit] Kitchen exhaust cleaning -
[edit] Anti-Shannar riots of Sivakasi -
[edit] Rudolph Valentino -
[edit] Byzantine Empire -
- Rejected 25 November 2009
[edit] Andrew Mango -
- Rejected 25 November 2009
[edit] Indexes Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box on the right. |
