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)
Questioning reliable sources without citing other relevant or equally credible sources.
Edits by Vidrhet based upon personal opinions about what should be said in the article, not what can be supported. Use of POV language.
The "online magazine" cited by Vidrhet was a clearly labeled opinion piece by an individual who appears to be a current or former student at U of I, and there is no indication that this is anything other than a blog.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
The WCIA story and News-Gazette article repeat claims of threats made but no evidence or quote of threats is presented. Other source challenged the unsupported assertion but was edited based on personal opinion by one editor (Dual Freq) and removed by another (FriendlyFred). That source should at least be back in, without the POV edits by DualFreq. [Vidrhet] Suggest something like: "A local online magazine questioned the actual existence of the alleged threats [reference]."
Alternatively, if noting that the sources don't actually provide evidence to support the claims of violence is somehow out of bounds, then shouldn't those unsupported quotes at least not be included in this entry.
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. I'm going to reject this case under the authority granted to the chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9, "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." Frankly, even before going to other dispute resolution forums, I'd suggest going to reliable sources noticeboard first, then to dispute resolution if RSN does not resolve the issues. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (chairperson)[reply]
