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 information about Bulgakov's views on Ukraine be included in the leading seciton? I stand by the claim that it is perfectly within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section given the importance of this topic. In particular, I stand by my claim that including an overview of Bulgakov's controversial view of Ukraine is perfectly within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section's guidance, namely a statement encouraging "including any prominent controversies" in the leading section..
Should the section Mikhail Bulgakov#Views on Ukraine be written in a more generic way (e.g., my version that talks about his personal views on Ukraine in a summary format) or trying to picture Bulgakov's anti-Ukrainian sentiment as views expressed only by one scholar, Myroslav Shkandrij (e.g., version from AveTory, where he has paraphrased the section entitled 'Views on Ukraine' to make it sound as if Bulgakov's denial of Ukraine's rights to independence is a one-off statement by a rogue academic, Myroslav Shkandrij, as opposed to a claim supported by various academics and Wikipedia:reliable sources).
Additional issues (added by other parties)
Additional issue 1
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.
Agree, I'm open for any discussion as long as the user stops reverting the edits since the information he adds is biased and fabricated as I already shown in my edits (in particular, the Kiev-gorod summary which has little to nothing to do with the original text). AveTory (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
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 meet prerequisite for mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The RFC pending at the article talk page is such a proceeding. Note, however, that even if this had not been rejected under #8 (and no RFC had been pending), it would almost certainly have been rejected under prerequisite #9; if the RFC produces no fruit after being left to run for it's normal 30 days, consider filing at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard before returning here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
