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)
I highly appreciate my opposition's various editing input. However, should there be runtime columns to quantitatively document censorship, given the June 1 notice from SAPPRFT that bans all other runtimes not approved by the institute, regardless whether a tiny subset of films had been cut by local distributors for commercial decision? I was not performing semantic gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion. This is not original research anymore. This is like attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. I can't explain it well. But I beg IAR to come in place.
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.
Disagree. The RfC is still ongoing, it has been open for only a couple of days, and I refuse to submit to any formal mediation while the RfC remains open. Additionally, due to the fact that others have commented at the RfC, I do not believe the above party list is complete. The matter of whether or not films not edited by a state body but affected by the June notice has yet to be rigorously discussed, and so is not appropriate for mediation at this venue, though there appears to be some manner of attempt at discussing it at the still open RfC. Personally, perhaps after the RfC is closed or if I feel pushed to do so by Supermann, I'd rather discuss this at a venue in which editor behavior can be assessed, such as ANI, as it is my opinion that this has gone well past a content dispute and is rather becoming much more a concern over Supermann's editing practices and behavior, and such concerns have been brought up by others than myself. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 1 August 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.
Reject: Fails to satisfy Prerequisites for Mediation #5 and 8. (RFC being a type of dispute resolution procedure.) For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
