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)
Users are WP:POV pushing/not allowing Cesare Lombroso to be properly identified as "Jewish-Italian" as most biographers and authors describe him as noted in the MANY citations I have provided. Also, user UnequivocalAmbivalence is now reverting any edits of mine, specifically calling-out a form of racism prevalent under the Fascist regime of Mussolini, namely anti-Sicilianism.
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.
Disagree. One user @Trinacrialucente is going against the consensus established by at least three others, misrepresenting sources and edit warring. This will be a case for the 3PR board quite soon if he does not stop. I would like to [WP:DENY]] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 satisfy prerequisites to mediation numbers 3 "the dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor" and 4 "the parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page." "POV pushing', "not allowing", and reverting are behaviors. Moreover, when the discussion at the article talk page is stripped of conduct allegations and comments about editors rather than edits, the discussion which is left cannot be considered to be "extensive", so even if this case had been filed without references to conduct, it would still have been rejected under prerequisite #4. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Then what are next steps here? There is no room left for discussion as these specific editors will not allow anything that in their view seems inflammatory to Jews. Mentioning that this person was Jewish is not inflammatory, it is a fact of history and relevant to the discussion, since he wrote on Jewish topics, in Jewish publications, wrote a book on anti-Semitism and is characterized as "Jewish" in biographies by most scholars. How can we get past this impasse?Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
