Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Count key data

Count key data

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Chatul (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Tom94022 (talk · contribs)
3. Chatul (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Count key data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. History of IBM CKD Controllers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• User talk:Chatul/Sandbox/Count key data#Alternative Construction
• Talk:Count key data
• User:Chatul/Sandbox/Count key data/notes
• User:Chatul/Sandbox/Count key data

Issues to be mediated

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)

1. Whether to confine historical data to a section labeled History.
   1. I Added a History section on 5 August 2015; and gradually expanded it.
   2. User:Tom94022 rewrote most of the Hisory text and removed the History heading
   3. I want to reinstate the History section and move the technical information into a new Technical Details section
   4. There's a separate issue as to whether the history of the controllers should be in a separate article
2. Whether presenting technical features in the sequence of their announcement makes sense.
3. Whether to distinguish CKD from ECKD in the structure.

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.

1. Agree. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Disagree please see "Malformed statement of primary issues" in Talk section. I would agree if we could agree upon the issues. Tom94022 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

• Chairperson's note: I've pointed out to the responding editor on the talk page that the issues to be mediated will be determined by the mediator assigned to the case after consultation with the parties, so the issues listed here may not be the final ones mediated. If either party does not care to mediate on the issues determined by the mediator, they can withdraw at that time. I'm going to give the parties 24 hours to reconsider in light of those facts. If either is listed or still listed as a rejection at that time, then the case will be rejected under prerequisites to mediation 5 & 6. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reject. For the reasons given above. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)