Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Morocco

Morocco 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:

Closed as stale

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: 21:38, October 16 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

FayssalF (talk · contribs)
Koavf (talk · contribs)

Several other parties involved at different points and to different extents, including but not limited to:
A Jalil (talk · contribs)
Asterion (talk · contribs)
Aussie King Pin (talk · contribs)
Ecemaml (talk · contribs)
John Riemann Soong (talk · contribs)
LucVerhelst (talk · contribs)
OwenBlacker (talk · contribs)
Rhialto (talk · contribs)
Robdurbar (talk · contribs)
S710 (talk · contribs)
WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs)
Wikima (talk · contribs)
Yasser04 (talk · contribs)

Only those members active in the discussion from the past week have been notified.

Articles involved edit

Morocco

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

RfC made on Politics, discussion started and continued at length.
Informal mediation carried on at talk, with no resolution between the parties. Editor suggested seeking mediation.

Issues to be mediated edit

Should the map at the article Morocco include Western Sahara?
- If so, in which way should this be depicted?

Comment - I don't know why i was invited to mediate on an issue which was sorted out by a double concensus ( current revision reached concensus twice - see 1st and and 2nd time within 4 months) declared by the majority of the wikipedians listed above! All i know is that the claiming part-Justin (koavf) who hasn't agreed yet that there was a concensus is the one to go file a report at the ArbCom. I mean mediation about what? -- Szvest 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the mediation has been agreed by consensus.
This mediation clearly goes against it
In my eyes it is non relevant
More importantly there is a much broader request from Jalil, myself and surely other people and which I hope I will formalise any time soon: clean out the Western Sahara related topics from all the POVs and propaganda and balance the information.

Thanks - wikima 18:47, 17 October 2006 (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 signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree.

-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Asterion^talk 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie King Pin 07:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--A Jalil 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--wikima 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--WilliamThweatt 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal We go forward from here; other parties are not currently editing Wikipedia (e.g. Yasser).

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Accept

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this case as your mediator. From here on out, let's use the talk page for mediation. Thanks. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 02:43, 12 November 2006 (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.