Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Hinduism

Anti-Hinduism

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Khabboos (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. AcidSnow (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Anti-Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Hinduism in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Persecution of Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• I disagree with this edit: [1]
• I tried discussion here: [2] and an Rfc here: [3], but to no avail.

Issues to be mediated

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)

1. If we cite references, a sentence should be acceptable. I have cited references for the arson at the Art of Living centre in Islamabad, Pakistan, which can be seen here: [4], as well as the mob attack in Nowshera, Pakistan, which can be seen here: [5]. I therefore want my sentences restored, as I don't think an edit war can solve anything.

@AbstractIllusions, Joshua Jonathan and Toddy1 - The editors who answered at Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Request_for_comments wanted the Nowshera mob attack to be removed from the article from the Persecution_of_Hindus article, because the word, "persecution" was not mentioned in the references cited (but actually one reference did cite persecution[6]). However, in the Anti-Hinduism article, arson and mob attacks can be mentioned even if the word, "persecution" is not mentioned in the references cited. Mediation is to avoid edit warring and that's why I'm here (forum shopping wasn't my intention). I hope an admin can tell us how to insert the arson in Islamabad and the mob attack in Nowshera, Pakistan, without an edit war, in all 3 articles I mentioned above or at least in just the Anti-Hinduism article!—Khabboos (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Khabboos is trying to game the system by forum shopping (yet again).
  • The mob attack in Nowshera was discussed at Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Request for comments: of 8 editors, 6 opposed Khabboos's text being in the article, and 2 supported it.
  • The arson at the Art of Living Centre in Islamabad was backed by references that speculated that the arson might have had religious motives (they did suggest other possible motives too). This was discussed at Talk:Persecution of Hindus#Revert, why. I think User:AbstractIllusions said it best: "The revert and removal of information was by policy, and more importantly a good decision by the editors to keep speculative, context-less reporting off of an important topic".

By the way why is User:AcidSnow being singled out on this? Lots of editors have expressed an opinion on this.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: I'm one of the editors who opposed, and I agree with Toddy1 that Khabboos is forum-shopping. An AE-request regarding Khabboos was closed only two days ago, in which the possibility of a topic-ban was considered. To me, Khabboos' behaviour toward AcidSnow is beginning to look like harassment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by AbstractIllustions: The RfC is still relatively new and is open for comments. Discussion has not finished yet. Mediation is premature until the RfC wraps up to allow that discussion to fully function. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Additional issue 2
• Other users have already explain their stance on this; which are similar to mine. I am not sure why he is continuing with this nor why he keeps singling me out like this.
  • "forum shopping wasn't my intention", bold thing to say considering the fact that you were told to stop numerous times. AcidSnow (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

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.

1. Agree. Khabboos (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree. AcidSnow (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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.

• This seems premature. I note that an RfC was initiated by the filing party on March 20. There has not been much discussion on the talk page to date. Let's hear from other participants. Sunray (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reject. Not enough participants agreed to the mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)