Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line/Archive 2

Introduction
Greetings, Parties, and thank you for agreeing to become involved in this Mediation. Such an action demonstrates that you are all willing to bring an end to this dispute, and thus are working for the good of Wikipedia - again, thank you.

For those of you who have not came across me around the encyclopedia yet, I'm AGK, although in conversation Anthony is fine. As one of the newest members of the Mediation Committee, I operate quite differently from other Mediators: my style of operation is to divide Mediation into three "stages" (as well as a fourth, initial stage which we're beginning right now) ... inventively named, Mediation Stages 1, 2 and 3 ;) each of these will help establish what each party wants (as well as exp, give each party an oppurtunity to explain why they think what they want should be implemented, and finally allow each party to put forward proposals for a solution to this dispute.

First, however, we need to agree on the Mediation Location (see below), and to allow any further parties to be put forward. In the meanwhile, any questions should be directed to me at my talk page; if you wish for a more private means of contact, details of getting in touch with me are available at my contact page.

Kind regards, Anthøny  (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Location
The recent straw poll concluded that consensus is to hold the Mediation on this page. This poll closed at 2/0/0 (Support/Oppose/Other) for this location.

Anthøny (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Stage 1
As there is only one issue to be Mediated in this case, this stage of the Mediation will simply be a post by each party, stating whether they agree or disagree with the issue in question, and why.

"Why" should be reasoned argument, preferably backed up by policy or guidelines, if they exist. In order to keep things standardised as much as possible, I've drew up a "template" for each party to use; simply copy the text below, change the fields to your personal view, and post underneath this section:

*Your name*
My opinion is that the Russian name of the metro line [*should/should not*] be included in the

lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.

I think this because [*why you think the opinion you have given above is correct*].

~

Please proceed to post your opinion below this section.

Kind regards, Anthøny  (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Note - parties should now post their statements too Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line/Party Statements. This is to prevent confusion over the location (I wish to keep all statements together), which might be created by the sections that now come after the statements. On this point, just to clarify: party statements should be added to the end of the other parties' statements (i.e., at this page), and not to the end of the base page.

Outside View by Xyboi

 * Since I was asked, I will comment on the choice made on the Dutch language wikipedia, but I will not take a stand in this discussion. I chose to use Ukrainian names in both the titles and the text of the articles themselves, because these are currently the only ones that are officially used by the metro company. Even though Russian language signes may still be present, no new signs in Russian are placed. It will probably only be a matter of time before all Russian signes have been replaced. Furthermore, accoustic station announcements are in Ukrainian only. It may well be true that some/many Kievans use Russian names when referring to metro stations, but since these do not seem to have an official status (anymore), I stuck to the Ukrainian ones. (Contrarily, in the case of Kazan, where both Tatar and Russian are used on signes, accoustic announcements, and maps, even the titles of Dutch articles are bilingual.) Also, using names in one language only is more convenient and less confusing for readers. I'll gladly leave the question whether including Russian names is (un)necessary, informing, imperialist, useful, .. and whether excluding them is POV, distruction/withholding of information, straightforward or realistic to you. Greetings, Xyboi 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - the following is a clarification, which was added upon request of a party in this Mediation.''


 * I'm beginning to feel like I'm a witness in a trial ;). In understand what the argument is about here, but as I said, I will not take a stand in it, I only explained my choices in the Dutch articles. All station descriptions feature Ukrainian names only, both for practical reasons and because these are the only official ones. The same holds for the main article on the Kiev Metro, which also features a section on language issues, which was actually based on the English version by Kuban Kazak. Xyboi 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Input
I'm getting a little concerned that there isn't enough input from the other parties in this Mediation. Please note that I cannot provide a platform for Mediation (that is, keep this case open) unless all the parties are willing to participate in Mediation.

I'd encourage the active parties at this page to get in touch with those who are inactive, urging them to participate.

Anthøny 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've contacted several users, but am afraid, it is the middle of the holiday season, some time will be needed to get them all to contribute. --Hillock65 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; it's good too see that it's because of extra-Wiki commitments that there's a party absence, rather than simply neglect! My thanks for your efforts - it's much appreciated ~ Anthøny  19:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it is bad timing as well, it being the holiday season. For example, one of the most important people in this mediation — User:Akhristov the one, who filed for this mediation appears to be on holidays and has not edited for days. More time is needed. --Hillock65 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay: time isn't an issue in Formal Mediation, so long as it's not in the sense of party neglect. So long as a satisfactory conclusion seems a reachable goal, I'm fully prepared to persevere with this case, including waiting over stale stretches. Anthøny  20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Sections
I've removed all the discussion sections, and I'd ask parties to both refrain from restoring them (or the content that was included in them), and to refrain from continuing discussion over statements: this will come at a later stage. The only discussion section that will remain is that which came under the statement of, as that contains invited outside views that I believe have a place here ~ Anthøny  20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. It was clearly specified by you that there are place for discussion (per ). That's that we did. --TAG 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I am not at all "giving anybody into trouble" (for want of a better phrase); I'm simply revising my own decision, using that wonderful tool hindsight. Anthøny  23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Mediation's Active Status
Parties - could I please have some input over the status of this case? Are there any parties willing to participate, or is the general opinion that Mediation is no longer necessary, either due to extra-Mediation circumstances, or due to recent developments on the party front (e.g., Hillock retiring).

Anthøny  ん  10:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still willing to participate (except for the fact that I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll do my best to check Wikipedia regularly). Except there's one problem: User:Kuban kazak, who was one of the original people in this dispute, doesn't seem to care that much about this case... Which means that if we come to a decision, the dispute might start all over. — Alex Khristov 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still in. We need guideline developed for situations like this one. --TAG 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to persevere insofar as all the parties also are. If we are going to continue, I'd like to see a much higher level of input in the case - otherwise, my course of action will be to close the case as stale. Perhaps a couple of the active parties could give the more inactive ones a nudge? Anthøny   ん  21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to do that within the next couple of days. — Alex Khristov 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ak. for making that effor - much appreciated. Just a note here, but I'd like for general participation to be higher than in our previous Mediation attempts. If any parties are going to be absent, I'd rather temporarily suspend the Mediation than waste resources in attempting to push participation that's not going to come (in that one or more parties are away from Wikipedia).


 * But, more on that when we get re-started; in the meanwhile, thank you Akhristov for contacting the parties - if anybody else can assist him, feel free. Cheers, Anthøny   ん  18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my lengthy absense, I was away, and did not realise this was still on, can someone summarise what happened between 10 August and now? --Kuban Cossack 12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically - nothing. The case has remained stale since August 5, if I am reading the archives correctly. We're currently trying to get the Mediation back off the ground and running again, but (as you'll see if you read above) I'm unwilling to proceed if the participation levels are not substantially higher than the previous attempt(s).


 * If you check out the "archive box" at the page top, you'll be able to read through the old discussions; if you have any questions, drop me a note or an email, or raise it in a new section on this page. Kind regards, Anthøny   ん  19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I thought that consensus was already in place, as me and Hillock have agreed to the new format? Well if the parties opposed to it have any objections let's hear them. --Kuban Cossack 08:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it was the parties who had not been contributing in the Mediation who opposed it, so obviously we'll need to backtrack and do the whole Proposed Changes to Article process again. That's why I'm pushing for a higher participation level this time around - the Mediation simply can't work without all (or virtually all) the parties contributing.  Anthøny   ん  15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)