Shang Dynasty
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Easy772 (talk · contribs)
- Kanguole (talk · contribs)
- Nishidani (talk · contribs)
- Rajmaan (talk · contribs)
- Ogress (talk · contribs)
- Zanhe (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Shang Dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
Issues to be mediated
edit
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)
- Should additional material proposed by User:Easy772 be added?
- Do any of the proposed additions amount to synthesis constituting original research?
- Comment - Some progress has been made at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the scope of the issues appears to be expanding and formal mediation is requested in place of informal mediation.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
edit
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.
Agree. Abstain as neutral party as per advice from chair. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]- I do not believe mediation would be helpful, and have already suggested that an RFC would be the appropriate way to garner new views on the content question. Kanguole 11:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I am open to RFC if formal mediation does not go through, though I don't think a 'brief description', mentioned in the RFC page, is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not alerted to this RfM! Is this RfM active, or has it just been forgotten and not closed by accident? Ogress smash! 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
edit
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: @Robert McClenon: It would appear to me that you acted as a neutral party during the DRN discussion and are not an actual party to this case (unless you care to make yourself one at this point in time and are taking a position as to how the article should be edited). If you do consider yourself a neutral party, please change your acceptance vote to "Abstain as uninvolved neutral, will not participate in mediation" and I will not count you in adjudging whether we have enough acceptance to go forward with this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
- Reject. Failed to satisfy Prerequisite to mediation #5 "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
