Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flashplayer/UGOPlayer Encyclopedic

Flashplayer/UGOPlayer Encyclopedic

Involved parties

• Fagstein (talk · contribs)
• Sbloemeke (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Wikipedia_talk:UGOPLAYER http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:UGOPlayer

Can be viewed in the talk page, at the bottom, that both parties are awair

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:3o
• Deletion Attempt

Issues to be mediated

• Whether the content of the article, specifically the "The Site" section is neutral or verified.
• Whether the content of the article, specifically the "The Forum" section, and even more specifically the history section is notable.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Whether the content of the article, specifically the "Content" section is encyclopedic and notable.
• Whether the content of the article, specifically the "The Forum" section and its history section is notable.
• Whether a "Top 10" list of animations and/or authors is notable for its own sake.
• Whether a poll conducted on a website is a proper source for an article on that website.

Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

• Agree. Sbloemeke 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Fagstein 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept: I have a small concern that the parties may be expecting more from mediation than we can offer; the issues are phrased in a way that suggests they are looking for a binding decision from someone else. Mediators don't make such decisions; we help parties come to an agreement about such questions. As long as the parties are aware that the mediator will not be issuing a judgment, we should be fine.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Sbloemeke hasn't edited besides the two day interval on February 20 and 21. Is this mediation still necessary? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Flcelloguy; mediation is closed, but may be reopened at the parties' request. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)