Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk · contribs)
3. Yagasi (talk · contribs)
4. NPguy (talk · contribs)
5. Neutrality (talk · contribs)
6. Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Moderated dispute resolution was attempted at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The volunteer moderator then failed the moderation, but the parties then said that they were ready to discuss. Due to the number of disputants, the issue may be more appropriate here than at DRN.

• Comment - A volunteer moderator at DRN is now trying to reopen discussion there. Discussion may reasonably proceed either at DRN or here. It can't proceed at both. The MedCom might want to wait to see whether discussion resumes at DRN, in which case this case can be declined (without prejudice in case discussion there takes too long). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

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)

1. To what extent should concerns about Iran and Israel be included in the article subject to due weight, as opposed to whether their inclusion should be excluded as fringe?
2. What other issues do the disputants wish to discuss?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

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.

1. Agree Neutral. (I attempted to mediate informally at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I recommend formal mediation as the next step, but am not a party.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I defer to NPguy on whether he thinks this would be useful. Neutrality^talk 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Decline so long as DRN discussion proceeds. I do not think it makes sense to proceed with this unless the DRN discussion fails to yield an actionable outcome. If the DRN case fails, then I will immediately accept. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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: Robert McClenon's presence in the party list, above, will not be considered in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met. A minimum of three "accepts" will be needed for the case to be accepted by the Committee and move on to the next stage. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
• Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums" now that the DRN case has been picked up by a new moderator there. This may be refiled if no resolution is achieved there. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)