Talk:Burma/Request for mediation

This was the comment that I have moved to this talk page (Deamon138 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

#Agree (note) in principle but strongly doubt this mediation will help reach any common ground between parties and therefore help resolve this dispute. Still, I shall join in for the moment, but I will walk out if I see several other users refusing to take part. Nonetheless, I applaud this initiative. Húsönd 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If users reject mediation then the case won't be accepted. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us want closure, Daniel. We've been questioning the legitimacy of the move from Myanmar to Burma since it happened in October, and every time it has resulted either in "Speedy close" or "No consensus, so keep at Burma". If the mediation looks over our past discussions and honestly determines that Burma is the better name (or that Myanmar is, or that a split is the best answer), then we'll finally have something legitimate to base the article's title on. It would've worked earlier with the Cabal, I think, if the Cabal members had reached a consensus among themselves. -BaronGrackle (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of whether this can produce a conclusion: this is a naming convention dispute which chooses between the use of two non-neutral names (see this source I recently found) the use of neither of which is intended to make a statement about which name is more legitimate. All we expect in a choice of name is that the best reasoning is used to land on that name, so it appears the most natural within the article. The dispute here is that people disagree on the reasoning.

The Medcom could do a very good job here by subjecting proposed reasoning to proper scrutiny and making conclusions about their legitimacy as arguments. I don't know if this would be acceptable in the way that you operate, but it might be worth constructing a structured list of "findings of fact" à la Arbcom and Medcom members voting their support. For example, many initial comments, although we have by and large got past this issue, argued that Burma should be used to make a political statement of support of freedom/democracy. A "finding of fact" about the role of political agenda in naming and in Wikipedia generally would provide an easy point of reference to anyone who questions the final decision based on such grounds. A more difficult issue is that a lot of arguments (and indeed one of the closing bureaucrat comments) were based around one of the names being "more common" in one context or another. The Medcom is in a position to assess whether this is the case.

The trouble with past approach is that rather than agreeing on the steps which lead up to a choice of name, people instead jump straight to the name they support and discover that they disagree. If we can get over this style of approach I see no reason we cannot reach a decision that all parties can agree to settle with. BigBlueFish (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beamathan

Perhaps should also be added as a disputant. (I've no experience with this so am not sure if I can just plonk in an additional name.) --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has participated in past discussions on this. I left a note and a link on his talk page... I have no idea if it's the case of "sign yourself up as a party", but many of us can vouch for Beam's participation. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any comments from him lately, but he was originally part. It's a complicated RfM, and having it be overinclusive on "involved parties" may lead to it failing the administrative requirements for mediation because some of those parties have moved on and are no longer interested in participating. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I have seen his name around. I agree though that there have been so many users involved in this that we can't add everyone. That was my main problem when it came to filing the request really. I felt those that had commented recently on the talk pages or commented as part of the dispute on the Cabal pages would be a good start, and if there were others needed such as Beam, then those who have been involved longer would add them, which seems the case here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

I don't see what more can be usefully said on this subject and how this process will assist. Where do I sign up to oppose the initiation of this process? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've figured this out - one signs up to the process and then disagrees with it. Strange... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, CW did not participate in the RfC or the MEDCAB case. He has participated in previous discussions of the topic (this appears to be the most recent activity), but has not been an active part of the attempt to resolve this. I don't believe that his lack of participation or objection to the process is particularly relevant, as there have likely been a hundred or more users that have made some comment about their opinion on the name and not all are represented here. SDY (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but it seems a single disagree is enough to veto the whole request. (Although this isn't relevant to CW, I do wonder what is to stop a random user from listing there name, and then adding disagree, even if they've never participated in any of these discussions before?) Deamon138 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OWN, this article or dispute is not the property of any particular group of editors. I have an interest in the matter, as noted above. I have not chosen to wrangle over it lately as the status quo seems a reasonable result and further discussion seemed unlikely to be productive. I oppose further attempts to disrupt the current position. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a request for mediation an "attempt to disrupt the current position"? We've tried other methods to resolve this dispute, and nothing has come to a consensus yet, so a request for mediation seems like the next step. I appreciate your right to refuse mediation, but I'm afraid I don't really understand the purpose of doing so. Why do you feel like it would be "unlikely to be productive"? Thanks, Rundquist (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is to terminate continued wrangling over the matter so that we may move on. I do not consider that this process will be helpful in this respect. We already have a resolution which supports both names - the redirect and the mention of both names in the article. The point remaining is the continued wrangling over which name gets top billing. It does not seem likely that this resolution process will terminate this wrangling since we have a vexed question to which there is no perfect answer. Perfact is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]