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)
Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
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.
Reject. I am going to reject this case under the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 "to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." While any of those may be used (except perhaps third opinion, which has already been rejected by third opinion volunteers), I would strongly suggest that the parties accept the offer made by FoCuSandLeArN to prepare and negotiate a draft taking into consideration the disputed issues. There is good reason to believe from discussion on the talk page that a person with skills in the French language will be needed to help sort through the linguistic difficulties of the parties as well as sources which may be in French or for which French is needed to help determine reliability and Focus has a FR-3 ability in that language. The only Committee member who claims an advanced ability in French has only an FR-2 ability and is already tied up at the moment with a particularly difficult mediation. For those reasons, I believe that the best thing for the encyclopedia at this moment is to continue discussion at the talk page with the assistance of Focus. Failing that, the dispute should first go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for help with determining the validity (i.e. reliability) of sources and once that is complete, then to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or to a properly-crafted request for comments or, sequentially, both. If all that fails, then this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
