Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shang Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shang Dynasty

[edit]
Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Easy772 (talk · contribs)
  3. Kanguole (talk · contribs)
  4. Nishidani (talk · contribs)
  5. Rajmaan (talk · contribs)
  6. Ogress (talk · contribs)
  7. Zanhe (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. Shang Dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. Should additional material proposed by User:Easy772 be added?
  2. Do any of the proposed additions amount to synthesis constituting original research?
  3. 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]
  1. Agree. Abstain as neutral party as per advice from chair. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. 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 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  • 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]