Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Withdraw RFC as poorly worded

Withdraw RFC&#32;as poorly worded

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture
 * Category talk:People of Jewish descent
 * Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should the RFC be withdrawn as poorly worded and not asking a question? Editors can't agree on WP:BURDEN, whether it is being met, whether burden shifts; whether sources are being appropriately challenged; editors are making, or alluding to, allegations/accusations of obstruction, bias, canvassing, inconsistency, etc. Arguments are circular, non-productive.
 * 2) Should a new RFC be formulated and if so, can it be assisted to ensure it meets WP standards?


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Bubbecraft (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #2, "The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page". In this case the dispute relates to the RFC itself, which is neither an article or content page. Mediation through this Committee does sometimes become involved in negotiation of the formulation of RFC's, but only as part of the process of attempting to resolve a content dispute which has been brought to the Committee and after mediation here has failed to resolve such dispute through ordinary mediation. I express no opinion at this time about whether a mediation might or might not be accepted on the underlying category dispute and this rejection is only for the current request about the RFC about that issue. If the dispute continues after that RFC is over, then a new application may be made on that dispute. (In passing, I would also note that even if the foregoing reason for rejection were not the case, this application would also fail to satisfy prerequisite #4: "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice". There has been extensive discussion about the subject of the RFC, but not about whether it should be withdrawn or reformulated.) For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)