Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Film censorship in China

Premature?

Speaking as one of the named parties, while I would be open to a formal dispute resolution, I hesitate to approve to one before this particular mediating body, which is a final stop. The current content dispute has only been discussed at the talk page. It has not undergone any other form of content dispute. Not an RfC, not a DRN. Hell, the dispute itself was less than 24 hours old at the time of the mediation request. I don't wish to formally decline the request --for fear that it would make me seem not open to any sort of formal dispute resolution and because should I be convinced otherwise about the prematurity I will formally approve--but I feel that it is too early for this particular committee. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. WP:CONTENTDISPUTE says, "The ordering of dispute resolution processes in terms of complexity, experience and volunteer expertise would be: Third Opinion first (if only two editors are involved), then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, then Formal mediation, with the Request for Comments option being available at any point in that sequence." We already have two opinions against the original research. DRN or RFC could have been another step before RFM. As stated elsewhere, I've already posted a neutral notice at WT:FILM for other editors to comment on the changes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]