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 addition be unremoved. They were correctly cited, Cordray was head of the agency during the findings of the GAO (also cited), removal seems partisan and political.
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. This was added and cited under Richard Cordray tenure as leader of the CFPB, with THREE direct cites. It seems like talk didn't work and removal of an addition before discussion seems counter intuitive which is why i choose this route for my additions. Should not an addition with proper citations be discussed before arbitrary removal based on conjecture? Sounds only fair to me. Hogfanjax (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2018 (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.
