Shooting of Michael brown
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Cwobeel (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
Issues to be mediated
edit
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 attribution to an individual is required for statements of fact concerning the operation of a United States grand jury.
- Whether or not a specific criticism by a non-expert requires a full attribution, equivalent balance against experts in the field and a full quotation from a commentator's opinion that was not the conclusion or focus of an editorial.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
edit
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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. There are several other parties not included. If all parties involved are included I may re-consider.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee
edit
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: I would ordinarily reject this case at this point under prerequisite for mediation #5, as a majority of the parties have not agreed to mediation, but I'm going to allow a few days — let's say until Sunday, January 4, at 11:59 UTC — for both parties to add additional parties in light of Cwobeel's comments, above. Either currently-listed party may add additional parties and the maintenance bot will notify them. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (chairperson)[reply]
- Reject. No additional parties added, no agreement from majority of listed parties. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
