Editors involved in this dispute

1. Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Tirronan (talk · contribs)
3. Noren (talk · contribs)
4. Dabbler (talk · contribs)
5. The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
6. Calidum (talk · contribs)
7. Rjensen (talk · contribs)
8. Rwenonah (talk · contribs)
9. A D Monroe III (talk · contribs)
10. Moxy (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:War_of_1812#Infobox_-_again

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Question over the results in the infobox, as to whether they should indicate alternative views of the results of the war, that

it was a Canadian victory or a strategic stalemate.... or should it just reflect the majority view of Historians. If it only indicates one countries viewpoint in the infobox, does this make the article US centric, and thus is it against NPOV policy?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

1. Agree. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree. Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Virtually the same issue was mediated successfully several years ago --after many months of mediation--and no new evidence has been presented since then. Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree.Tirronan (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC) The same user has been on a mission to change the info box for over a decade. Editors have been drug over the same issues over and over. As Rjensen notes we went through this process once before and a whole section was added to the article in accommodation of this editor. As Rjensen has noted nothing new has been presented since then.Tirronan (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree. Noren (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) My read on the discussion on the page is that there is a consensus against the changes proposed by Deathlibrarian, with a lot of participation but not a single other editor expressing any agreement with this proposal. Given the existing consensus I see no need for mediation.[reply]
5. Disagree. Dabbler (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC) I believe that the infobox is not the correct place to record all the many nuances of opinion about the result of the war which are discussed in the article itself. I cannot see mediation changing the long established position of the vast majority of editors.[reply]
6. Disagree It's like who won the U.S. Civil War. Interesting to argue, but not productive. TFD (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chairperson's note: @Deathlibrarian: All parties substantially involved in the recent discussion must be made parties to this case. Add them above using the form #{{user|Username}}. Do not leave blank lines between parties or put more than one party on the same line. Do not change or remove any of the other formatting or material in or around the "Editors involved in this dispute" section. (Sorry to be so bossy, but very minor changes can break our maintenance bot.) The case will be rejected for lack of proper parties if you've not added them by 18:00 UTC on September 7, 2016. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) Satisfied. TransporterMan (TALK) 06:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chairperson's note 2 to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

• First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the article, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
• Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 6 accepts before the case can be accepted.
• Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
• Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept.
• Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
• Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. With 5 rejects, it is now impossible to get a majority of accepts even if some parties withdraw. This request fails to meet prerequisite to mediation #5, linked above. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]