Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nation state

Nation state

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Meenmore (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Whizz40 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Nation state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Constitution of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

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)

I have been having an on going dispute with Whizz40, it began on the Constitution of the United Kingdom page. Once I got blocked for edit warring on that page, I then went over to the British Army page to contribute, no one raised any concerns with my contribution but as soon as Whizz40 appeared on the talk page, I ended up getting blocked. I then found Whizz40 had undid my contribution on the Nation state page, when I reverted my contribution back, he began an edit war, bear in mind, my association with that page is longer and older than that of Whizz40. Whizz40 used meatpuppets to get me blocked for my contributions on that page. My contribution was actually rooted in online sources which could be reached whereas the previous version was entirely rooted in online sources that could not. I then updated my version and a third party made a most welcomed and greatly appreciated grammar fix. I actually requested the page to be protected as I suspected Whizz40 would attempt to assail it, which, proved to be the case. Whizz40 is more established on wikipedia but I do not think that gives him or her the right to follow me around wikipedia assailing my contributions and getting me blocked. I want this to stop. Meenmore (talk) 00:55, 28 February 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. Agreed Meenmore (talk) 00:55, 28 February 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. There are two types of dispute resolution at English Wikipedia, content and conduct.

• Content DR — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Formal Mediation (i.e. this forum), and Requests for Comment — will not handle cases involving user conduct or become involved in discussions about it.
• Conduct DR — speaking to an administrator, filing a case at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, various forums through or under the Arbitration Committee, and some specific-purpose forums such as Edit War Noticeboard and Sockpuppet Investigations — will not handle cases involving article content or, ordinarily, become involved in discussions about it.

All the issues listed above by the filing party, except the sentence "My contribution was actually rooted in online sources which could be reached whereas the previous version was entirely rooted in online sources that could not." are conduct issues. (The following sentence about the grammar change, just to be precise, is not an issue at all.) If you wish dispute resolution on those conduct issues, consult one of the conduct DR processes which I have listed above. As for the one content issue, I am going to reject this request under prerequisite to mediation #9 which authorizes the chairperson 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." I would suggest filing at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but without mentioning user conduct at all; if you wish to address the user conduct, I would suggest doing so and completing that process before filing any content DR as most content forums will not accept or continue a filing if a conduct filing has been filed and has not been closed. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)