Involved parties

Note: indicates listed party has accepted. Recusals have been struck.

1. BQZip01 (talk · contribs), filing party (I think I've included everyone who was involved since the last proposal; if I've missed anyone, it is an unintentional oversight)
2. 2008Olympian (talk · contribs)
3. Alistairjh (talk · contribs) (posting under the name "DeMoN2009") (As of 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) this user has made no edits since being notified)[reply]
4. Andrwsc (talk · contribs) (active user)
5. Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs)
6. CIreland (talk · contribs)
7. cmadler (talk · contribs)
8. ESkog (talk · contribs)
9. Hammersoft (talk · contribs) (active user)
10. Hogvillian (talk · contribs)
11. Johntex (talk · contribs)
12. Kaldari (talk · contribs) (active user)
13. Kusma (talk · contribs) (active user)
14. Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) (active user)
15. Ndenison (talk · contribs)
16. Oren0 (talk · contribs) (active user)
17. Rtr10 (talk · contribs) (active user)
18. Sherool (talk · contribs)
19. Strikehold (talk · contribs)

    Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

    All users notified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Allstarecho (talk · contribs) (active user)
21. AuburnPilot (talk · contribs)
22. B (talk · contribs) (active user)
23. Black Kite (talk · contribs) (active user)
24. Bobak (talk · contribs) (active user)
25. Casliber (talk · contribs)
26. CH52584 (talk · contribs)
27. DHowell (talk · contribs)
28. Dynaflow (talk · contribs)
29. ElKevbo (talk · contribs)
30. Fabrictramp (talk · contribs)
31. Falcorian (talk · contribs)
32. Garion96 (talk · contribs) (active user)
33. Geni (talk · contribs) (active user)
34. Giants27 (talk · contribs)
35. Hobit (talk · contribs) (active user)
36. Howcheng (talk · contribs) (active user)
37. Ikip (talk · contribs) (active user)
38. J Milburn (talk · contribs) (active user)
39. Jayron32 (talk · contribs)
40. Jheald (talk · contribs) (active user)
41. JKBrooks85 (talk · contribs) (active user)
42. Masem (talk · contribs)
43. Matt91486 (talk · contribs)
44. MickMacNee (talk · contribs) (active user)
45. Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs)
46. Nanonic (talk · contribs) (active user)
47. Nmajdan (talk · contribs) (As of 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) this user's had no edits since notification)[reply]
48. Nurmsook (talk · contribs)
49. PassionoftheDamon (talk · contribs) (active user)
50. Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs)
51. PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
52. Penubag (talk · contribs) (active user)
53. Protonk (talk · contribs) (active user)
54. Pytom (talk · contribs) (As of 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) this user's had no edits since notification)[reply]
55. Resolute (talk · contribs)
56. Rspeer (talk · contribs)
57. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) (As of 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) this user's had no edits since 27 February)[reply]
58. Stifle (talk · contribs)
59. Tealwisp (talk · contribs) I am not personally involved; I attempted to mediate, and was unsuccessful. My ultimate recommendation is that this be laid to rest, and conflicts resolved on a case-by-case basis to avoid kudzu. If a concrete decision is made in either direction, a lot of people will be dissatisfied and disillusioned.
60. Tedmoseby (talk · contribs)
61. ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs)
62. Wiggy! (talk · contribs) (active user)
63. Wiki alf (talk · contribs) (active user)
64. Willking1979 (talk · contribs)
65. Zscout370 (talk · contribs) (As of 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) this user's had no edits since notification)[reply]

    Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

    46 additional parties involved in the RfC notified. Cutoff was at 3 or more edits to the RfC, based on BQZip01's inclusion of User:Hogvillian and User:Kaldari (who each had 3 edits to the RfC) in the first set of notifications. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added notations as to which users are currently contributing to Wikipedia since notification. This is not a reflection on their status as a "good" or "bad" editor, but a reflection that this person may not be available and contacting them via other means (e-mail) may be the only way to apprise them of this discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

• 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2005 Texas Longhorns football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are only examples of a articles involved. The extent is far-reaching to any/all sporting events, seasons, games, and teams.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Beginning of current debate: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_39#Severe_overuse_problem.
• Talk pages: 2005 Texas Longhorns football team 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game
• WP:RFC:
  • Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1
• Informal mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos
  • Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2
• Question on acceptability of case: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Would_this_case_be_accepted.3F

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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: What does "minimal use" mean with respect to WP:NFCC?
• Issue 1.5: How can a single image be properly/improperly used in multiple articles (with respect to WP:NFCC#3)?
• Issue 2: Where do trademarked images fall? Should we treat them as Public Domain images or as Copyrighted images?
• Issue 3: Should team logos be used in articles about a season for a team? Should they be discouraged even if they are free logos?
• Issue 4: Should team logos be used in articles about a team? Should they be discouraged even if they are free logos?
• Issue 5: Should team logos be used in articles about a game between teams? Should they be discouraged even if they are free logos?
• Issue 6: Should team logos be used in articles about rivalries between teams? Should they be discouraged even if they are free logos?
• Issue 7: Should bowl game logos be used in bowl game articles? What about the team logos`? Should they be discouraged even if they are free logos?
• Issue 8: At what point is "consensus" achieved despite objections?
• Issue 9: Is silence really consent as outlined in WP:CONSENSUS?
• Issue 10: Is a trademark which has the ability to be copyrighted (passes the threshold of originality), but is registered as a trademark a trademarked image or a copyrighted image. Should we treat such images as copyrighted or trademarked (WP:NFCC is more restricive than Fair Use)?

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: When there is not a consensus that an image use satisfies the non-free content criteria, should that lack of consensus result in the status quo being maintained or in the image use in question being discontinued? CIreland (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues added by Johntex:

• Since a logo serves as an officially created/designated representation of what it stands for (product, team, etc), can any free alternative truly serve the same purpose as the official logo?
• If the answer to the above question is "no", then is there any benefit to the project in minimizing the use of logo?

• Specifically on original issue of #1, with respect to "minimal use", is "minimal use" meant to be applied across WP as a whole, or only on each article? --MASEM (t) 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues added by DHowell:

• Is there any doubt that the usage of logos being discussed here is fair use?
• Does such usage of logos in any way discourage the creation of free content?
• Is the Foundation resolution, in its explanation of "minimal", not explicit in allowing a project's exemption doctrine policy "to include identifying protected works such as logos", and has the Foundation ever said anything about minimizing the number of such uses?
• What benefit, if any, is there in interpreting the NFCC any stricter than required to ensure compliance with copyright law, to encourage the creation of free content, and to comply with the Foundation resoultion? DHowell (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 9.

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.

1. Agree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. --2008Olympian^chitchat 07:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. CIreland (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Sherool (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. Johntex\^talk 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. Willking1979 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree. – PeeJay 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agree. I'm not listed above, but was notified and would like to see a resolution to this issue. Resolute 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. Mr.Z-man 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Disagree, per Hammersoft. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Agree, I suppose. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Agree. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Agree. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Agree. Tedmoseby (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Agree. cmadler (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Meh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Agree --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Agree. --Dynaflow babble 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Agree. CH52584 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Agree. --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Agree. Hogvillian (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Agree. --auburnpilot talk 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
27. Agree. Strikehold (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Agree. rspεεr (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Agree. DHowell (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Agree. -- penubag  (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Agree matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Agree Wiggy!
33. Disagree. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Decline: I've tried to make headway in focusing this mediation and failed. I still feel very strongly that it is essentially impossible for this to succeed in its present form. I want this issue to be resolved. But, this mediation isn't the way to make it happen, at least not in its current form. I decline this mediation because I want to see it re-started with a much tighter focus on the real principle issues, not ones that are beyond the scope of this group, and not ones that have already been decided elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbelievable. You started this whole issue single-handedly. You even demanded an additional 46 partied be notified of this mediation request. And now you Decline. If this mediation is rejected, then I guess we go with the status quo, which is to leave the icons in the articles. Fine by me, but please don't complain in the future.--2008Olympian^chitchat 09:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you even read his comment? He's not saying he doesn't want to see an end to the dispute, he, and I, and JKBrooks85, don't believe a mediation with such insanely broad issues is appropriate or has a chance of resolving anything. I would suggest you read his comment again, particularly "I want to see it re-started with a much tighter focus on the real principle issues" and consider retracting parts of yours. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35. Agree Oren0 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Decline. You don't mediate your way round policy. If you want to change policy, this isn't the place. Black Kite 10:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

• Comment: I have opened discussion on this request on the Committee's private mailing list. AGK 16:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remark (in a strictly individual capacity): I think several of the listed issues to be inappropriate for exploration at formal mediation. For example, issue 9 would involve building a consensus on a site policy, which would be a meaningless exercise: consensus can only be changed through community-wide discussion (and not through a closed, exclusive vehicle such as mediation). AGK 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So, what is the next step in this whole cluster? I have noticed some people deleting existing stuff or adding more stuff recently, and it would be nice to get this decided one way or another so we know how to proceed instead of just having a free-for-all. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears the discussion is once again spilling over into other areas. (specifically Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Overused non-free images, where it was suggested to use plain text logos in all places where school logos are currently used. (and some have been actively making such changes widespread) Just fyi for anyone interested. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request rejected. Not all parties agree to the Mediation.

(Unanimous and explicit agreement from all parties is a requisite for formal Mediation; see WP:M#What is mediation?.)

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 10:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Ken keisel (talk · contribs), filing party
2. ViperNerd (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Discussion on talk page.
• Request for assistance from a neutral third party.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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. User ViperNerd has contested the contents of the article and its cited references. He has placed a "consensus tag" at the head of the article that I have removed several times. He offeres no evidence to support his challange to the article's contents, and has stated in the discussion that he has posted the consensus tag in order to seek out other people to challange the article. Until he has evidence to support his claim that there is no consensus to the article's contents the tag should be removed.
• 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 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.

1. Agree. Ken keisel (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject. Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution attempts have been made to justify adding this case to the backlog at the Committee at the present time. In the interests of resolving this dispute amicably and in the briefest possible time for the participants, I suggest obtaining the help of the Mediation Cabal; click here for more details and instructions on filing a case there. I make this decision on the grounds that you would be better suited to asking for resolution at the Mediation Cabal, given your dispute is relatively narrow in the scope of the issues; and that I believe the parties may benefit from the more informal nature of the Mediation Cabal, given the nature of this dispute.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. DoyleCB (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
3. Alanraywiki (talk · contribs)
4. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk · contribs)
5. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• West Ridge Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1.
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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 main editor, Storm Rider, is making disruptive edits. Editor has a stated COI, blocks and warns other users but fails to reach a consensus for their edits on the talk page per the editors own guidelines.
• Editor is violating several rules, namely Weight, NPOV/COI, Bullying, Host.
• Only one POV is being allowed to make edits per the page.

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.

• Editor should not revert other users edits made after a consensus is reached on the talk page.
• One editor is not maintaining civility.
• One editor is allowing a representative from the organization to use Wikipedia as their web host.

• Comment - I disagree with the need for arbitration given that we are in the midst of a cooperative work except for Doyle, who has rejected everyone's counsel and the warnings/encouragement of several editors on the talk page. However, I welcome any help we can get at any time should a mediator have some free time to visit the article.--^StormRider 06:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given the time this is taking to obtain a decision, additional information may be in order. This is a new editor to Wikipedia with a extreme POV who has only edited a single article West Ridge Academy. To date, s/he has yet to understand the concept of consensus editing and the principle of what Wikipedia is not. We do have several experienced editors on working on the article and in time will produce a netural article. During that period this editor, User:DoyleCB, may turn into evovle into a productive editor; however, until that time it is going to be a difficult time given her/his refusal to cooperate with other editors. --^StormRider 06:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem user does not an ArbComm case make. I think that we should give mediation a go first, and if Doyle's behavior becomes problematic seek administrative intervention. ArbComm has much bigger fish to fry than one overzealous newbie--calling them in for this would at this point be absolute overkill. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Daniel, thank you for your time, but this process is dead in the water. User:DoyleCB has been blocked indefinitely and thus his issues, though I believe wholly without merit and extremely premature, will await his return. I hope to work with you in the future under better circumstances. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting me know. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Agree. DoyleCB (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. StormRider 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Although I would have agreed with the additional names added, it is exceedingly strange that DoyleCB would change it independently and accept on my behalf. --^StormRider 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. WestRidgeAuthorized (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) With the caveat that I'm fairly busy both onwiki and off, so I likely won't be that closely involved.[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

To all parties: My apologies for the delay. This case page got lost and I only just found it then.

To the filing party: Please list prior dispute resolution attempts in the relevant section. The Mediation Committee and requests for mediation is the second-last step in the dispute resolution chain on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lists the various types of dispute resolution available. They include:-

• Discussion on the article talk page, and attempt negotiation
• Solicit third party input:-
  • Requests for comment (on articles)
  • Third opinion
  • Surveys
• Mediation Cabal (informal mediation)

It is generally expected that at least one of the third party input options has been attempted, and informal mediation has been tried, before a request for mediation will be accepted. Discussion on the talk page, whilst required for any form of dispute resolution to be considered, does not fufill the requirement of 'prior dispute resolution'.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reject per Stormrider's 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) comment.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. Example (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Example2 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1.
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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.
• 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 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.

1. Agree. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

• Reject.
  No details have been provided for this request (including the involved parties, links to prior attempts at dispute resolution, and the issues to be mediated). The filing party is free to contact me or any other Committee member if he needs assistance in filing an RfM; however, currently, an inadequate level of information has been supplied for us to process this request.
  For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• LeUrsidae96, filing party
• User:JRSP

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• Hugo Chavez

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Presenting evidence in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ohsk6QuZN4
• Presenting evidence in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNvG7IAyTK4

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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 about Hugo Chavez's ability to speak English.JRSP shot it down even though it was true.Even though Hugo Chavez cannot speak good English,he can speak a little.click on link and watch video,the videos are the evidence.I think JRSP needs to consult the evidence and watch the videos before deciding what to do.His reasons that they are irrelevant and that most Venezuelans can't speak English are extremely useless as language knowledge usually invovles a person's personal life.Hugo Chavez ,unlike most Venezuelans,can speak a little.I think JRSP is quite selfish and ignorant to do this(editing my statement,which is true and constructive).
• None.

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.

• None.
• None.

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.

1. Agree. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. JRSP (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - please seek earlier methods of dispute resolution such as a third opinion, content request for comment or informal mediation before bringing this here.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

1. CnrFallon (talk · contribs), filing party
2. SqueakBox (talk · contribs)
3. EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)
4. Simonm223 (talk · contribs)
5. RicoCorinth (talk · contribs)
6. Jun-Dai (talk · contribs)
7. Tocino (talk · contribs)
8. VaChiliman (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

• 2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Example link 1. Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

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. Name of the article, most feel that it should be at something more neutral than coup d'état.
• 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 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.

1. Agree. Conor Fallon (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree VaChiliman (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[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; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected again. (The bot failed to archive Daniel's rejection.) AGK 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more. AGK 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute details

Issues to be mediated

The issues to be mediated are the aspects of the disputed articles over which the parties disagree. Be as specific and as concise as possible when outlining the issues. The filing party should add the issues here when completing this request. Other parties may request on the talk page that additional issues be added or that amendments be made to the primary issues.

• Come to a compromise as to what notation goes in Bishonen's block log (Jimbo has already agreed to this).
• A look at the reasons why this dispute escalated.
• A wider look at Jimbo's future use of the block button - hopefully we can make things more official than a statement on his own talk page.
• A look at Jimbo's use of other tools going forward.

Requests that issues be added by proposing so on the talk page of this mediation.

Party agreement to mediation

All parties should indicate below whether they agree to participate in this mediation or not. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the request will be declined. Please indicate that you agree by adding "Agree. ~~~~" (or Disagree if you do not) below. Comments should be directed to the talk page.

• Disagree. Sorry, Ryan, I'm not trying to be difficult or make some sort of point here, but I do not agree. I have tried to discuss and communicate with Jimbo already--note, not only on my subpage User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, but by now also on the arb's mailing list. I'm completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts. Both of us do our best, no doubt, but I've never had so much difficulty in communicating and arguing with somebody before. Surely this whole thing can't depend on me performing that feat? And what the blazes is so wrong with the arbs opening a case? Presumably the community looks to them for guidance on this--not to me. (I am, whatever Rlevse says, after all a "Jane User", although Jimbo is by no means a "Joe Admin".[1]) The arbs have already proposed a number of suggestions for how to frame a case--for the scope--on the RFAR page. Alternately, in case there's is something magically repugnant about an "arbitration case" about Jimbo, NYBrad has said he's proposing to deal with the matter by a motion instead, and what's wrong with that? Bishonen | talk 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Bishonen, I agree that you and Jimbo have both tried to discuss the matter. That is a difficult process because of your respective roles in Wikipedia. You ask "what's wrong with the arbs opening a case?" Well, unless I've missed something (always possible) the policy on dispute resolution has not been followed. According to WP:DR, arbitration is a last resort: "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration." You have taken a first step, but how does bypassing mediation meet the intent of the policy? Sunray (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. I stand ready to continue as I have bending over backwards to try to find a way to resolve this issue with Bishonen. I do not understand why Bishonen believes this cannot be resolved through discussion. I have already unilaterally agreed to some of her demands and, as Ryan notes in the opening, even agreed to place some mutually agreeable note into her block log. She refuses to even attempt to find such a wording, despite me making very clear to her that I am open for suggestions. I made all these concessions to her in order to show generosity and forgiveness, and I still stand ready to do that. I believe that an ArbCom case is going to leave her much worse off than what I have offered to her.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be right about that, Jimbo. I wonder if it would be all right for me to quote some of your "generosity and forgiveness" from your e-mails on the arb mailing list, to show people just what I'm having to contend with? Probably it wouldn't, so I won't. Jimbo, I'm sorry my reasons for declining aren't clear to you. Please note that I'm not declining to be contrary; I'm doing it because I can't face it, and because I'm convinced it wouldn't do any good. Look, people--Ryan, Sunray, and so on--if I'm to be forced into doing this, why are you even bothering to "ask" me? And what's wrong, again, with Brad proposing a motion (my god, already I'm repeating myself)? An arbcom motion? Why would anybody by preference want a Bishonen motion? Is it because you think I'm more managable than Arbcom or something? More likely to give up sooner? Well, I probably am; I feel soft as putty after the efforts I've already made. But that's not a good reason for me to take it on. Ryan, I'm now done on this page. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Forced mediation is an oxymoron. Unless both parties agree to mediate in good faith there is scant chance of success. As to your feeling soft as putty after the efforts you have made, I can relate to that. It appears to have produced little towards an accommodation. Either mediation or arbitration will be demanding, but as least in mediation we can take as much time as is needed. We do not have to go any faster than participants are up for. I honestly do not understand your reasons for bypassing this step. Would you be able to explain that? Sunray (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sunray, she said no. She doesn't have to explain ad nauseum. This is the wrong venue for behavioral disputes and administrative actions, anyway. Nice idea on Ryan's part; the offer was made and rejected. Move on already. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My question was not whether she said yes or no, it was why? If there has been an explanation, I missed it. The question seems reasonable to me. I also do not see this as a "behavioural dispute." It involves an action and an administrative sanction. There are questions about the application of policy in each instance. That is what mediation is all about IMHO. Sunray (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To KC: He wasn't asking her to explain ad nauseum; he was asking Bishonen to expand on a handful of points she made in her above comments. AGK 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, I actually think Bishonen's explanation is sufficient, and more explanation is uneedful, and pestering her to provide such is badgering. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • KC, I am saying that it do not get Bishonen's reasoning on this. Would you be willing to let her answer for herself? Sunray (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can read, Sunray. I actually do see what you are saying. And Bishonen can do whatever she wishes; neither you nor I will hinder her from that. I am merely chastizing you for badgering someone. Is this now clear enough for you? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Committee will accept or decline this request in due course. Mediators may also add queries for the parties or other remarks or suggestions. These may replied to briefly by means of an indented post underneath, or at length on the mediation talk page.

Decline. For the Committee, AGK 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note: I confess myself to be disappointed in having to decline the request, but the case cannot proceed without unanimous agreement from both parties. In a strictly individual capacity: for what it's worth, Bishonen, I would observe (in response to your comment that you're "completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts") that mediation is a process that takes the burden of working towards a compromise away from the parties and onto a third-party—which would allow all involved a little breathing room. AGK 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]