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)
In the article it is attributed to Irving what he did not write?
User, on technicality accuses me of edit warring while reverting edit restoring what Irving DID write in that particular book, saying the change is 1) major 2) promotes Irving's views
Admin sides with the accuser, who ratted to admin, while refusing to discuss in talks, just keeps reverting
All refusing any debate, as to why they insist Irving should remain misquoted
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.
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 prerequisite for mediation #4, "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yuri Kozharov Parties opposing the edit were refusing to take part in discussing and this resulted in me being warned, which currently on Russian wikipedia, serves as additional reason to support request to block me. Currently, parties (at the US wiki) entered discussion in talks but insist that, while my link to prove existence of the matter is interesting, it does not mention Irving but mentions Stalin etc, while the matter that this David Irving author was misquoted and for that misquotation his (Irvings) reasoning is added, which raises suspicions that this is a POW, refusal to accept rewording (and correctly attributing to Irving what he DID write) continues. Apologies for editing here after the decision was served. —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
