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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation Location 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Outside View by [[User:Xyboi|Xyboi]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Input 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion Sections