Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Single-party state

Single-party state 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:

Inactive/lack of interest.

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: 02:28, December 5 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

MedCabal [1]

Issues to be mediated edit

Whether it is POV to call a country a Single Party System when there is proof that it discriminates against other politcal parties

[2][3] [4] yet other parties still have won seats in their 'parliament' [5]

If it is Original Research WPPolicy(see here) to use the above three sources as sources to cite showing Singapore is a single-party system

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Whether the definition of a single-party system must be followed exactly to determine if one country is or isn't one. Quote, "..a single-party state or one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election.." [6]

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; Wiki eZach| talk 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Regebro 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ter e nc e Ong 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Vsion 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with reservation towards head count decisions. — Insta ntnood 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Huaiwei 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. However, if the mediation fails, we should take this to arbitration. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper, but I would be happy to try to assist in this case if the participants and Mediation Committee are agreeable with this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. However, we already tried informal mediation in MedCabal, and they gave up before they even started, and there have already been talk of dragging this to arbitration. I think we need people with as much klutz as possible, and therefore a formal member of the mediation comittee. Sorry. --Regebro 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have offered to help here if I were not willing to seriously entertain an attempt at mediation, especially given the nature of the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I arent sure who "they" refers to there, for as an involved party, I do not recall ever being notified of the MedCabal case [7], let alone being able to "give up".--Huaiwei 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On further pondering, I remove my objection to your mediation, Wiz. Huaiwei: They = MedCabal. --Regebro 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, lets not have an argument before the mediation even gets off the ground. If the parties would prefer a Committee member, that's valid, and will be respected. They may, however, have to wait longer for one to come available. Essjay (Talk) 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this case for the mediation committee, assuming that no-one involved has any objection. I'll be reading through the vast quantities of material when I can and deciding how to proceed. Officially, I'm on a wikibreak, but since it doesn't appear that anyone else is going to take this case and the discussion continues to wind round, I'll do it, but I may be a little slower in my response than normal. Thanks. —Xyrael / 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that no-one involved is really interested in this dispute anymore, and for this reason the case it being closed. I offer informal mediation to any parties still involved - just drop me a talkpage note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 10:19, 11 February 2007 (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.