Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of military occupations

List of military occupations

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Keokani (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. 198.45.184.25 (talk · contribs)
3. Yossiea (talk · contribs)
4. 189.122.201.52 (talk · contribs)
5. 88.104.221.81 (talk · contribs)
6. 63.151.231.253 (talk · contribs)
7. 128.190.125.2 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations#Current

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_occupations&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Hawaii

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Third_opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Reliable_sources

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

I included Hawai'i on the list of current military occupations. I have provided three reliable sources in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines. One is a direct link provided by the U.S. Government Printing Office, to U.S. Public Law 103-150. The other two are articles published in peer-reviewed law journals. Until recently, the listing has been repeatedly deleted without any sources provided as justification. Now, it has become a dispute over whose sources should prevail, to determine if the listing should remain posted or get deleted. Keokani (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1- I question the reliability of the sources to justify Hawaii's inclusion in locations held under military occupation.198.45.184.25 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Additional issue 2 - It's an unfounded claim without reliable sources. This dispute involved two editors (myself and Keokani). We sought a WP:3O. Apparently, Keokani didn't like said third opinion, so he reverted the page--contradicting the outcome of the 3O process. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Keokani (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Agree. Note: my previous IP was 189.122.201.52. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• @Keokani: Could the filing party please shorten the primary issue(s) summary, above? It is supposed to state what the issue is, without touching on (let alone explaining) what arguments are on each side of the issue. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. It is shortened now. Keokani (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• A Request for Comments is now pending at Talk:List of military occupations#RfC: Should Hawaii be included as currently under military occupation. This dispute no longer meets item 8 of the prerequisites for mediation and should be refused. Frankly, in light of the number of parties and, especially, the number of IP editors, that may well be a better solution since there is a high likelihood that there will not be enough agreement here to allow mediation to move forward (and a listing at dispute resolution noticeboard would likely have the same problem) and RFC may bring a faster and more comprehensive resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (committee member)

• 'TransporterMan, I'm not sure I understand your comment above. Prerequisite 8 reads that "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." Is the other "dispute resolution proceeding" the RFC? Or is there a similar dispute on a similar (but slightly different) Wikipedia article? Although many editors are listed as being involved, I am only aware of three that are involved: Keokani, 198.45.184.25, and myself (edited as 189.122.201.52 and 179.218.140.239. Unless someone has been deleting entries from the talk page, I don't think the other editors are involved except to the extent that they were following WP:Bold. The fact that they apparently never returned to the page seems to mean that they're not truly involved. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• In adding an RFC I'd not understand it to a dispute resolution proceeding. We 3 individuals in this agree that mediation would be important in the dispute at hand. We 3 are trying to end disruptive editing of this page. I apologize if I was mistaken about RFC. If I was please allow me to end the RFC after it's clarified here that I was mistaken. I sincerely hope this mediation won't be derailed by a clerical error on my part. While the other IP editors were involved in the conversation I have to agree with the Above IP's assertion and Keokani. I'd also like to say that as far as I'm aware Keokani is the only person for Hawaii remaining on the as an occupied country. There are only 2 sides of this dispute and both represented here. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I updated the listing to read exactly as suggested by 198.45.184.25 in the third opinion section of the article talk page, with disclaimer added, which I agree with: "Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States, claimed by the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, 1898–present." If the other editors agree with that, then leave it up. If not, then take it down. The listing was just deleted for the 11th time now, which is also the second time by Yossiea, both without any rationale or sources given. Yossiea was invited to participate in this mediation, but has not agreed to. He also has not left any comments in the RfC on the article talk page. Given that anybody can come along at any time and delete a listing without justification, even while the listing is in the process of mediation or RfC, I will no longer be taking it upon myself to monitor or police the listing, as I have done for the past 7 months. If there are others who are interested in doing so, then it is their turn to take on the duty. This has been a good learning experience for me and I thank the two editors who have so far agreed to this mediation, for their commitment in adhering to the rules of the Wikipedia forum. Keokani (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this dispute has been resolved From the response below by Keokani. I thank everyone for their time.198.45.184.25 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. The matter appears to have been resolved. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)