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)
We have a long history of arguments, and they always result in that I feel like I am talking with a fact-resistant stonewall, which turns me increasingly angry, as I am overworked in general, and do not have the time and energy to properly deal with this. I need an uninvolved party to attempt to mediate between us so we can reach some conclusions.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
I have on multiple occasions tried to educate David A (talk·contribs) about the use of reliable sources, but the problem appears to be that if a source says something he disagrees with it's an "opinion" that can be deleted at will. He demands to use primary sources ("proof" he calls it) instead. // Liftarn (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2017 (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.
Reject. Pursuant to 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." While I would reject this for this reason in any event, the filing party's comment that his/her time is limited suggests that one of the lower, faster dispute resolution processes, especially Third Opinion or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (or both, starting with 3O, if needed), might be more appropriate since cases here at MedCom can frequently take weeks to months to resolve. Remember this, however: None of those processes (or here at MedCom) is going to be willing to hear, talk about, or deal with any conduct or behavioral disputes or allegations: You'll just be wasting your time if you even bring them up. When you file at 3O or DRN only talk about content questions, not editors. If you feel that there are conduct or behavioral issues which need to be resolved, do that first (by speaking to an administrator or filing at ANI) before filing at 3O or DRN; much better yet, just drop the conduct stick and just deal with the content issues. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
