Withdraw RFC as poorly worded
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Bubbecraft (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Debresser (talk · contribs)
- Nishdani (talk · contribs)
- Liz (talk · contribs)
- Shalom11111 (talk · contribs)
- Gilad55 (talk · contribs)
- Evildoer187 (talk · contribs)
- PA Math Prof (talk · contribs)
- Yuvn86 (talk · contribs)
- Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs)
- Musashiaharon (talk · contribs)
- The Human Trumpet Solo (talk · contribs)
- Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs)
- Sir Joseph (talk · contribs)
- ChronoFrog (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Category:People of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:People of Middle Eastern descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
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)
- Should the RFC be withdrawn as poorly worded and not asking a question? Editors can't agree on WP:BURDEN, whether it is being met, whether burden shifts; whether sources are being appropriately challenged; editors are making, or alluding to, allegations/accusations of obstruction, bias, canvassing, inconsistency, etc. Arguments are circular, non-productive.
- Should a new RFC be formulated and if so, can it be assisted to ensure it meets WP standards?
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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.
- Agree. Bubbecraft (talk) 04:27, 2 October 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 prerequisite to mediation #2, "The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page". In this case the dispute relates to the RFC itself, which is neither an article or content page. Mediation through this Committee does sometimes become involved in negotiation of the formulation of RFC's, but only as part of the process of attempting to resolve a content dispute which has been brought to the Committee and after mediation here has failed to resolve such dispute through ordinary mediation. I express no opinion at this time about whether a mediation might or might not be accepted on the underlying category dispute and this rejection is only for the current request about the RFC about that issue. If the dispute continues after that RFC is over, then a new application may be made on that dispute. (In passing, I would also note that even if the foregoing reason for rejection were not the case, this application would also fail to satisfy prerequisite #4: "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice". There has been extensive discussion about the subject of the RFC, but not about whether it should be withdrawn or reformulated.) For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
