The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.
Further instructions will be displayed at the next page, in a box at the top of the page.
If a mediation case page already exists for the dispute name, append 2 to the name; e.g. you would type Swimming 2 below, rather than Swimming.
After submitting your request:
Check that MediationBot has added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending; it may take up to an hour to do this. MediationBot will also notify all the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been filed (or message the Committee if this is not possible). Leave a message here if the Bot fails to do its job.
Add the case page to your watchlist, in case the mediator who considers whether to accept your request has any questions.
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)
Whether there is another well known name of the 1873 Treaty beside of the current technical name of the article that should be considered in the WP:LEDE and wherever it concerns.
Whether in the 1873 Treaty's LEDE (and wherever it concerns) the Treaty can be considered or named a defense pact in circumstances that it is a matter of contention.
Whether in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty and the Monopoly articles (and wherever it concerns) it must be concealed or manifested the fact that Peru sought to build a Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly and instigated Bolivia to break the Boundary Treaty of 1866 and to refuse the Lindsay-Corral Agreement with Chile.
Whether the "stated" intentions of the Treaty and the "real" intentions of the secret pact should be clearly differentiated and named in the LEDE of the 1873 Treaty article and wherever it concerns.
Whether The Chilean government considered the secret Treaty as one of the causes of the war and, if true, whether it should be said in the LEDE and wherever it concerns.
Whether the fact that the Treaty was forged exclusively against Chile and only against Chile should be clearly manifested in the article's LEDE and wherever it concerns.
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 1 to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.
First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 5 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.
Chairperson's note 2 to Keysanger: First, your issue #9 may be rejected for mediation as a conduct issue under prerequisite to mediation #3, rather than a content issue; if it can be restated without reference to editor conduct, please feel free to do so. Second, in light of the large number of issues, I'm going to ask that you demonstrate that there has been recent extensive discussion as to each individual issue by providing a diff to the most recent edit or edits in the discussion of each issue. If the discussion is spread between various talk pages and/or user talk pages, provide a diff to the most recent edit at each location. Once I have those, I'll determine whether prerequisites to mediation #4, 6, and 8 have been met. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)