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)
Does a user in his position, a former member of an agency similar to the one in question who could reasonably be assumed to have had contact with the agency in question have a possible COI?
Was the information I added to the article notable?
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. Aside from the fact that the editors talk page isn't an article, he hasn't come close to working through the DR process yet. We don't get to skip steps. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Comment: There are a couple of apparent misconceptions here on both sides:
@Niteshift36:First, if by your comment about "editors talk page" you mean that there hasn't been enough discussion on the article talk page, we're pretty flexible here at MedCom about where discussion occurs, so long as it occurs; if you mean something else, you might want to explain it better. Second, we have amended our policy here so that disputes can come straight here without prior DR, so the lack of prior DR is not a barrier to further consideration here unless you want it to be: Participation in DR is always voluntary, so if you would prefer going to DRN first (you've already had a 3O) or to do a RFC or just continue to discuss on the article talk page, that's your free call to give that a try; just say so (and with DRN wait for this to be closed or you'll probably get bounced out of there because this is pending here).
By editors talk page, I'm referring to having his page listed as an article affected by the dispute. 2 articles are listed under that heading. His talk page isn't an article. And no, this doesn't merit being here at this point. Jumping to the end isn't the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sephiroth storm:First, we cannot provide much help with the COI issue; that's a conduct issue and we only deal with content issues here. Also, let me note that, it's not even been listed at COIN for a full day. Things are slow here at WP around this time of year, you may want to give it a bit more time there. Second, if in that light you do want to go forward, we'd appreciate it if you'd give us more detail than "the information I added." What information? How about at least a diff or two?
It would be much appreciated if both of you would please restate your responses in the "Parties' agreement to mediation" section, above, to make it clear whether or not you want to continue here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC) (committee member)
Comment I think i'm just going to Disengage. I don't see much chance of us working out our differences on content or conduct. I'll watch the page, and give my opinions on any discussions, but thats about it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Reject. Parties do not both agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)