Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Significance of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious significance of Jerusalem

[edit]
Resolved:

Inactivity.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Involved parties

[edit]

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit]
  • Informal mediation on talk page
  • WP:RFC: added on 16 January 2007. No responses received.

Issues to be mediated

[edit]

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]

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. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

  1. Agree.Bless sins 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. --Shamir1 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Qasamaan 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]

Accepted

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to mediate this case - individually or alongside another editor; I'm currently mediating the MedCom case, Jews for Jesus (II) which is a content dispute over a religious article, so I feel I'm quite well suited to this case. The Jews for Jesus case would not obstruct me to this case, as it is all but wrapped up. Hopefully, I can use this case to help the Committee on an informal basis. Anthonycfc [TC] 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: ^demon has expressed his concern over a non-committee member mediating this case, and as such I am unwilling to mediate. Anthonycfc [TC] 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can take this case as well. Proceed on the article talk page rather than here. -Ste|vertigo 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.