Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFM)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFM" redirects here. For requesting a change of article name, see Wikipedia:Requested moves.

The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.

Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee's policy at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy, and so requests for mediation must satisfy the preconditions provided for by that policy.

To file a request for mediation, please skip to #File a request.

For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide.

Current mediation cases
Subject Mediator Open since Status

Mediation-en-lRequestsBot issuesDiscussContact

File a request[edit]

To submit a request, use the box below:
  • Further instructions will be displayed at the next page, in a box at the top of the page.
  • If a mediation case page already exists for the dispute name, append 2 to the name; e.g. you would type Swimming 2 below, rather than Swimming.

After submitting your request:

  • Check that MediationBot has added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending; it may take up to an hour to do this. MediationBot will also notify all the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been filed (or message the Committee if this is not possible). Leave a message here if the Bot fails to do its job.
  • Add the case page to your watchlist, in case the mediator who considers whether to accept your request has any questions.

Open requests[edit]

New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot. The bot runs hourly [search for "MedComClerk"].
Please don't list your case by hand; instead use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/File. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.)
→ There are currently no open requests for mediation. Please see above if you wish to file one.
Request for mediation concerning Causes of the War of the Pacific

Causes of the War of the Pacific[edit]

Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Keysanger (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. MarshalN20 (talk · contribs)
  3. Dentren (talk · contribs)
  4. KoshVorlon (talk · contribs)
  5. Cloudaoc (talk · contribs)
  6. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk · contribs)
  7. Nizolan (talk · contribs)
  8. Music1201 (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by Keysanger at 12:02, 4 November 2016)
  2. Economic history of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by Headbomb at 18:58, 5 November 2016)
  3. Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink as edited by MarshalN20 at 18:40, 1 December 2016)
  4. Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Permalink edited by MarshalN20 at 10:23, 23 November 2016)
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated[edit]

Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. Whether there is another well known name of the 1873 Treaty beside of the current technical name of the article that should be considered in the WP:LEDE and wherever it concerns.
  2. Whether in the 1873 Treaty's LEDE (and wherever it concerns) the Treaty can be considered or named a defense pact in circumstances that it is a matter of contention.
  3. Whether in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty and the Monopoly articles (and wherever it concerns) it must be concealed or manifested the fact that Peru sought to build a Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly and instigated Bolivia to break the Boundary Treaty of 1866 and to refuse the Lindsay-Corral Agreement with Chile.
  4. Whether the "stated" intentions of the Treaty and the "real" intentions of the secret pact should be clearly differentiated and named in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty article and wherever it concerns.
  5. Whether The Chilean government considered the secret Treaty as one of the causes of the war and, if true, whether it should be said in the LEDE and wherever it concerns.
  6. Whether the fact that the Treaty was forged exclusively against Chile and only against Chile should be clearly manifested in the article's LEDE and wherever it concerns.
  7. Whether in all articles of the Category:War of the Pacific, in the article Economic history of Chile, and wherever it concerns should be stated that the causes of the War of the Pacific were multiple, complex and controversial.
  8. Whether the first sentence of the article about the Saltpeter Monopoly is wrong as stated by user MarshalN20
  9. Wheather user MarshalN20 should explain what he means with his tags and which are his claims in the article about Saltpeter Monopoly.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]

  1. Agree. Keysanger (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

  • Chairperson's note 1 to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.
  • First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
  • Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 5 accepts before the case can be accepted.
  • Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
  • Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
  • Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
  • Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.
I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
  • Chairperson's note 2 to Keysanger: First, your issue #9 may be rejected for mediation as a conduct issue under prerequisite to mediation #3, rather than a content issue; if it can be restated without reference to editor conduct, please feel free to do so. Second, in light of the large number of issues, I'm going to ask that you demonstrate that there has been recent extensive discussion as to each individual issue by providing a diff to the most recent edit or edits in the discussion of each issue. If the discussion is spread between various talk pages and/or user talk pages, provide a diff to the most recent edit at each location. Once I have those, I'll determine whether prerequisites to mediation #4, 6, and 8 have been met. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


For a list of recently declined requests, go to /Rejected cases.

For a list of currently open cases, go to WP:RFM/T.

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box on the right below. Note that where mediation takes place is generally/often on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.