In order to uphold the privileged nature of mediation, it is the decision of the Mediation Committee to delete all talk pages associated with this case. The Committee affirms that the privileged nature of mediation is unequivocal, and that user conduct within the context of formal mediation is not subject to consideration in any other dispute resolution process.
The case was closed at 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC). If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request should be filed.
Click 'show' to view full details of the closed case
The actual mediation proceedings are on the talk page attached to this request. Please do not modify those discussions or this page.
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.
Unstated premises in the "primary issue" need to be explicit. Otherwise, these hidden factors skew negotiation in ways which undercut all reasonable hope for a constructive and lasting outcome.
Issue #1, Domino effect. This article title is complicated by the anticipated "domino effect" which flows from every step of its development. It is counter-productive to pretend otherwise.
Issue #2, Looking backward. This article title -- and this subject -- is a battleground. It is impractical to pretend that it is not.
Issue #3, Looking forward. A structural premise of mediation is that all necessary parties have agreed to participate; but this is not the case here.
The scope of "primary issues" which frame this case does also include future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In the future as in the past, this article title will attract the participation of editors whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.
Issue #4, Fact vs. factoid. Our conventional processes for discerning the threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia -- our core concepts, policies and procedures -- were construed as tangential in talk page threads; but they are not irrelevant or dispensable. It is unacceptable to pretend otherwise.
In our mediation process, the consequences of some foreseeable problems can be mitigated by identifying them. --Tenmei (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 RoundtableandRecord04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. – AJLtalk07:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 | —Talkcontribsemail06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply] 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)[reply] Second Addendum: As of about 0:700 GMT, 15 June, I will be on a Wikibreak for approximately 8 days. I am unlikely to have any substantial access to Wikipedia during this time. I would appreciate it if no final decisions are made regarding this mediation until I return, if that is at all possible (although I do approve the Code in its current form or even a somewhat altered one). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. If I declined to respond to even the first WP:RFM, it would be insanity to think I would consent to participating in this one. –HXL's RoundtableandRecord18:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is still the first RFM. I assume you came here as a result of the message posted by the MediationBot? I'll remove you from the above list so it doesn't happen again. If the Meditation Committee decides that is a problem though, I'll have to re-add your name to the list. – AJLtalk23:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Here I have been the last one signing this. I also signed "Agree" in the corresponding section which our new mediator Freezo set in "the Talk Page", where you can see a partial reason of my delay in this signing. --Lvhis (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Response: I disagree Phoenix; you have been involved in the most recent reincarnation of the NPOV-title issue. – AJLtalk07:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Accept. Two parties have not agreed to this request, but neither are significant parties to this dispute: User:Bobthefish2 has not edited for some months, and User:HXL49 is declaredly not very involved. On balance, then, formal mediation of this dispute can proceed. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your new assigned mediator is User:Feezo. He has indicated on the Committee mailing list that he is getting up to speed on the issues relating to this case, and will be beginning proceedings soon. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
