Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Extraordinary rendition by the United States

Extraordinary rendition by the United States edit

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

issues no longer require mediation

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 16:41, January 24 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Ccson (talk · contribs)
Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Articles involved edit

Extraordinary rendition by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Is the opinion of the 9 members of the World Policy Council, headed by Ambassador Horace Dawson and Senator Edward Brooke, and includes Congressmen, Amabassadors, world leaders, Presidents and heads of universities, foundation, and corporations a reliable source to be cited within the article?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

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.

Whether Ccson has a conflict of interest in this article and is trying to push a non-notable, non-neutral point of view in order to "get his way".⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, 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. Ccson (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of mediation, but I"ll give it a whirl for a bit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept to look at content issues only (conduct issues, if any, will hopefully be moot if the mediation of content is successful).

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this case, to reduce the backlog, but I have to go now. I'll start something on the talk page in a couple hours. -- tariqabjotu 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tariqabjotu, but it's moot now. I'm no longer editing the article, so by definition there's nothing further to mediate. Besides there hasn't been much dispute for days. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.