Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chantry Island Lightstation Tower

= Chantry Island Lightstation Tower

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Peter K Burian (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Imasku (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Chantry Island Lightstation Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Chantry Island Lightstation Tower#Reverted all of my edits? Mediation to follow

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. This article, Chantry Island Lightstation Tower, was very brief with 18 citations, on February 27, 2017. I began to add fully cited content to it, 20:18, 28 February 2017.‎ After I finished adding content, 21:24, 28 February 2017, there were 24 citations. Suddenly, on March 14, ALL of my edits were reverted by Imasku:

(18:28, 14 March 2017‎ Imasku . (14,086 bytes) (-3,444)‎ . . (Reverted 16 edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last revision by Jokulhlaup. (TW))

With no explanation at all as to why he reverted every one of my edits.

I raised the issue on the TALK page - and on User talk:Imasku; in both, I stated that if we could not resolve the issue, I would file for Mediation. He replied claiming that my citations were improperly formatted. However, only three are in red; the only issue is the date format with two of them, and a missing title with one of them. My citations are perfect in all other respects. (You really need to read his response of 23:14, 14 March 2017 in the article's Talk page to see his other rationale.)

And his final comment on the article's Talk page: I am an historian on this lightstation and a Doctorate Researcher and the Creator of this article. That is not useful, in my view. Chantry Island Lightstation Tower was created by him: 02:38, 3 August 2016‎ Imasku but being the creator affords no extra privileges with regard to content: WP:OWN. No individual owns the article.

I replied in detail on 00:15, 15 March 2017 with a ping to Imasku. He ignored my reply and my request to re-insert the content that I had added and he had deleted. Yet he has done edits on Chantry Island Lightstation Tower since 00:15, 15 March 2017 so clearly he has simply decided not to reply to me.

I do not want to start an edit war so I have done nothing to the content since the issue arose. (I could not Revert in any event; manual editing would be required to get the article back to the 21:24, 28 February 2017 version). Hopefully, Mediation will solve the issue. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

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. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (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.

• Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #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". Once the conduct comments and allegations are taken out of the discussion, there is very little discussion about the content issues. It is, moreover, disturbing that the discussion began under a section entitled "Reverted all of my edits? Mediation to follow" (emphasis added). Dispute resolution is not to be used as a threat or as a substitute for adequately engaging in discussion on the article talk page and engaging in discussion in this manner evinces a profound misunderstanding of the purposes and abilities of dispute resolution at Wikipedia. Finally, if this request had not been rejected under prerequisite #4, it would almost certainly have been rejected under prerequisite #9. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)