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)
I went to DRN because Xtremedood wanted to add some "criticism" to the article, even though many similar "criticism" had previously been removed from the article through editor consensus because they constituted hate speech. At the DRN it was decided that the sources being used for the criticisms were not reliable enough for inclusion in the wikipedia. As a side note the volunteer on the DRN commented that "alislam.org" , being a website, was not a reliable source in itself. As it was decided that the so called criticisms cannot be included in the article, Xtremedood starting blanking/removing large portions of the article with the rationale that the volunteer had said "alislam.org" is not reliable therefore all material available on Alislam must be unreliable, even if it is a published book. I reverted him once but he removed the content again.
I would like to request formal mediation to solve this dispute. According to wikipedia policy a published book even if not reliable third party 'can' be used for information about itself if the information is not disputed by other sources and this seems to be the case here.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
FreeatlastChitchat and I did not get our complete dispute resolved on the DRN. It was decided that for the "Sun and Moon Prophecy" section of the article that both Saritoprak and Adamson's quote for the prophecy would be included in the article side-by-side (issue #1). Issue #2, pertaining to the criticisms was not resolved. Some of the statements on the DRN allude to the idea that both FreeatlastChitchat's source which is "[alislam.org]" and my sources were potentially unreliable or unreliable. The exact wording may be seen on the DRN. FreeatlastChitchat's source, however, makes up the majority of the content of the article. I tried to include the 4 criticisms, however, FreeatlastChitchat reverted my edit claiming that the sources were unreliable. Since FreeatlastChitchat was inhibiting these sources on this pretext it therefore seems fair to remove statements referenced to "[alislam.org]" or its affiliates (which is the majority of the article). FreeatlastChitchat has since requested mediation and therefore we need to determine whether or not the so called "unreliable" sources of any nature will be included in the article or whether we will simply add the 4 criticisms and keep both FreeatlastChitchat's source as well as the sources that I propose to be used to reference the criticisms. Xtremedood (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Chairperson's note:This request ought to be rejected under prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." because the DRN case is not yet actually closed and the mediator there, Keithbob (who is also a member of this committee), still has a proposal on the table to which the parties have not responded. But it appears that the DRN proceeding is all but closed and the parties have moved on to here. I'm going to leave this open and pending, but neither accepted nor rejected for a few days (but not beyond seven days from Xtremedood's acceptance above) in the belief that the DRN case will be wrapped up and closed in that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Accept.This case is accepted for mediation. I will now seek a committee member (or, perhaps, a prospective member) to act as mediator in this case. If no mediator chooses to take the case within a week, then the case will be retroactively rejected. For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Acceptance withdrawn: Reject. Due to this filing at Arbitration Enforcement (which cites as evidence edits made to the article in question here) and especially (but not only as the AE filing is sufficient for this rejection) when combined with this one at ANI, this case now fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8 "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
