The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.
Further instructions will be displayed at the next page, in a box at the top of the page.
If a mediation case page already exists for the dispute name, append 2 to the name; e.g. you would type Swimming 2 below, rather than Swimming.
After submitting your request:
Check that MediationBot has added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending; it may take up to an hour to do this. MediationBot will also notify all the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been filed (or message the Committee if this is not possible). Leave a message here if the Bot fails to do its job.
Add the case page to your watchlist, in case the mediator who considers whether to accept your request has any questions.
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 the latest draft of the dismount theory be added to the Origin of Flight article?
Should Funkmunk be allowed to derail a discussion that was leading to an agreement between flexible parties, by prematurely referring the discussion for comments?
Funkmunk never showed any willingness to compromise or work towards a consensus. Dinoguy2 initially dismissed the dismount theory but later read the paper, and gave me the chance to respond to his questions, leading him to propose a compromise that I would restrict the dismount theory to the Origin of Avian Flight article and modify wording. I accepted the proposal from Dinoguy2 and offered specific terms. Rather than waiting for Dinoguy2 to confirm his support for the agreement, Funkmonk chose to derail a discussion that seemed to be leading to an agreement between those parties that were working towards a compromise. I tried summarize my position next to polarizing arguments made by Funkmunk on the comment page, but found that I was unable to access that page.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
User:Cookiecutteramaru is the author of the source in question which was newly published in a journal that has had reliability issues raised. The hypothesis is newly published (within the last month prior to the dispute) and has not yet been addressed or vetted by any other published sources aside from the initial peer reviewers of the paper. The hypothesis is new and radical in that it differs significantly from previous hypotheses concerning the origin of flight. I and other editors have commented that the hypothesis appears too broad to ever become testable and it is our opinion that if and when other published sources address the hypothesis it is highly unlikely to find support without major revisions. If this hypothesis is to be discussed in encyclopedic articles, it meets the criteria for WP:Fringe and should be limited in scope (only the main topic article Origin of birds and not all individual articles for the assortment of species mentioned as examples in the paper) and in length (1-2 lines maximum that highlight the dubious nature of the hypothesis). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
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.