Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Paul Singer (businessman)

Paul Singer (businessman) edit

Editors involved in this dispute

FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs) – filing party
Mendaliv (talk · contribs)
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs)
Steve Quinn (talk · contribs)
Meatsgains (talk · contribs)
Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
Jonpatterns (talk · contribs)
Whiteguru (talk · contribs)
Jonathan A Jones (talk · contribs)
Comatmebro (talk · contribs)
SegataSanshiro1 (talk · contribs)
Jdcrutch (talk · contribs)
NickCT (talk · contribs)
Fraulein451 (talk · contribs)
Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)
Capitalismojo (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Paul Singer (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated edit

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Is the use of "vulture" to describe an individual adequate, and if so what weight should be ascribed to each instance of the word in the lede and the article's body?
Should we adhere to this proposal by Jdcrutch?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation edit

Agree. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to edit the article or to participate further in the discussion on the Talk page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of participating further at this time. You can strike me off the list. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I don't currently have any thoughts beyond what I've said on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The failure to accept consensus on multiple occasions by a small minority doesn't warrant mediation. Policy is clear and it should be followed. Everything that can be said about this article has already been said in multiple discussions by multiple editors so count me out. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - There is no consensus regarding the issue at hand. Meatsgains (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I don't have much time to devote to this, but I see no reason to not try to work things out in this way. LK (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline -- the previous RfCs are entirely sufficient in sorting this out. Mediation would be appropriate for a dispute involving a smaller number of people, where it hasn't been possible to get wider community input. The RfCs have attracted wider input and the view of the community is already clear. Not a situation where mediation is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per the arguments of SegataSanshiro1 and Nomoskedasticity. I see nothing good coming from this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - invalid question - 'vulture' is not equal to 'vulture capitalist' or 'vulture fund'. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - A consensus needs to be reached. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree- Upon review of some sources, it seems more balance can be provided to the Paul Singer article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. There is absence of consensus on the use of this term, and agree with Jonpatterns above Whiteguru (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Chairperson's comments: 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, 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. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated 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 the mediation at that time. Based on the party list at this time, we will need at least 9 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Second, with this many people involved, if many fail to 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 appropriate parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
Third, 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.
Fourth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Fifth, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you do not intend to edit the article or continue discussion at the article talk page on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting and rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party account.
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.

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) 20:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Reject. Insufficient acceptance. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 09:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]