Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/KRBK

KRBK

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Ciller (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
3. Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. KRBK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

{{{links}}}

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. Should the current on-air staff section be a part of this article?

I'm formally disputing this change in the article. User, Corkythehornetfan removed a listing from this page that informs other users about the shows and the current on-air personalities at this TV station. He noted the change with "removed unsourced titles/slogans and non-notable staff". So in this change, he didn't remove any slogans. He just removed the titles of the shows and the staff on the air. Both of which are listed on the stations website and have videos with the names of the shows and people on youtube. Knowing that this section is a common feature on most TV station listings, and his reasoning to be incorrect, I clicked "undo" and restored it. He removed the section again with a reworded reason: "On-air staff" does NOT meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, which is why I took it off in the first place. Also, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY as Wikipedia is not a directory" . I don't agree with this reasoning. We did engage in chat, but it's clear to me that he has a vendetta out for this listing and refused to answer questions directly and was very arrogant in his replies. Shortly after this exhcange, Aoidh started to do the same.

First off most TV station listings include a section of current on-air personalities as well as former notable on-air personalities. Here are just a few: KMAX-TV, KOVR, KTLA, WPIX

This is common. So these two have for some reason targeted the on-air personalities of KRBK and don't want them to be displayed as part of the KRBK listing

Their basic reasoning is that it doesn't follow WP:LISTPEOPLE. So let's explore that. It says "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met". Okay, so you can include people if they meet the requirements. Got that. There are two requirements for them to be listed. The first one is "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement". So a sub-category. This section says "Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic". In my opinion, this section of current on-air personalities is very suitable for the article topic. Plus, this news team is the first news team the station has ever had. Is that not notable? The second requirement is "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." This one is easy. This list has a reference to a reliable source. The TV station's website. It takes you to the page where all of them are listed with their titles and contact information. How in the world is that not a reliable source? And even though this probably won't count, I work at this TV station. I didn't establish this section, but I have updated it several times.

Their reasoning for eliminating this section is debatable. And since it's a common section on other TV station websites, I believe it should remain. Plus, I don't like their arrogance, and I believe they have targeted this listing for a reason that is unknown. Why do they really want this section off this listing when other TV stations can have it? They want it off so badly, to the point they want to go into an edit war about it. I care about the listing because I work there and am in charge of the station's imaging. I don't like bullies and these two users appear to be using bully tactics. I would like it investigated.

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. mrsitcom (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2. I agree to discuss this. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
3. RFM is the final step of the dispute resolution process, not the first. The editor that filed this has not attempted to use the article talk page in any way, so this is rather premature. I'm not suggesting that I won't discuss it here if need be, but at this stage it would be an ineffective use of the Mediation Committee's time and effort; there's a reason why we use the talk page first and then move to other dispute resolution methods and using this option last, I see no cause to bypass methods which would be more than adequate for this dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 23:55, 18 September 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.

• Reject: Rejected per prerequisite to mediation #4, "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page..." Though there has been a bit of discussion at User talk:Ciller, which might have sufficed had it been extensive, most of it was about conduct, not content, and the conduct part cannot be called extensive. Also, this could probably benefit by going to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard before coming here, but even there will need more talk page discussion before applying at DRN. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)