Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Maryam Mirzakhani

Maryam Mirzakhani

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Maryam Mirzakhani

Issues to be mediated
Maryam Mirzakhani's Wiki page states that she resides in US,without providing any hint that whether she's a permanent resident of US or she just has some other form of US residency.Based on this.I edited her Wiki page,change the first sentence so that it includes her residence,but David reverts my edits,without providing clear explanations.I don't intend to rise some "nationalistic"rhetoric,as what claims below.Besides,Does  have any solid proof that she's a permanent resident of US?I agree that she's a tenured Professor of math at Stanford,but does it mean that she's a permanent resident of US??Certainly not!The current sentence uses "in United States",which clearly implies that she's a permanent resident of US.we don't have any solid proof on that.Rezameyqani (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * The disagreement stems from this particular sentence:"Maryam Mirzakhani (Persian: مریم میرزاخانی‎; born May 1977) is an Iranian[1] mathematician in the United States."


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * From my point of view, the article appears to be under attack by Iranian nationalists who wish to downplay the fact that Mirzakhani (as a tenured professor at a US University) is clearly based in the US. has been removing mentions of the US from the article outright (mostly reverted by ), and now  is trying to move the same information out of the lead and change US-based to saying that she "currently resides" in the US. But this is purely a content dispute that appears to be resolvable by the usual WP:BRD process, and there is an existing discussion of this on the article talk page, so I don't see the point in Rezameyqani's rush to take this to mediation. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Rezameyqani (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation" as David Eppstein's comments above are plainly not an agreement to participate. However, even if this had not been rejected under #5 it would have been rejected under prerequisite #9, "the Committee has the discretion 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." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)