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)
Sentence misrepresents cited sources.
Content of sentence is covered in proper depth in later part of article and is therefore redundant.
Other editors assign bad intentions rather than grappling with content.
Other editors not citing sourced rebuttals.
Change was proposed almost a month ago and last response hasn't been answered in 10 days.
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.
Oppose. Rocckker has not attempted any dispute resolutions methods other than one discussion thread on the article's talk page. And none of the other editors mentioned in the request support their position. TFD (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--I agree with TFD. Roccker has refused to accept the consensus of other editors and in my opinion has made a very weak case for his position.Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with TFD and Rjensen. I see this as an exercise in venue shopping after discussion did not go the way Rocckker13 had hoped. I believe that the discussion came to a natural conclusion in favour of the long established consensus. Having resolved this in the correct place I see no reason to burden a mediator with re-examining this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Chairperson's note 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 or ambiguous "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 4 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. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
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. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.
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) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Reject. Failed to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, linked above, acceptance by a majority of the parties. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
