Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waco siege

Waco siege

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Zambelo (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Niemti (talk · contribs)
3. Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Waco siege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ('Prelude' section)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Waco siege#Removal of content

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. Relevant and referenced content was added, but removed on multiple occasions by User:Niemti. The content shows referenced material linking the Cult Awareness Network to the Waco siege, with multiple references by multiple authors making the connection.

Without discussion, User:Niemti has been reverting the content.

Having put a fair amount of time and effort in putting together the material, I am looking for mediation in this issue before looking towards arbitration. I had first adapted the material due to issues raised on the talk page by other users, making it shorter, and increasing references proving relevance to the topic - ensuring the material fit within the scope of the article, however User:Niemti continues to destructively remove the new material without discussion.

Zambelo; talk 02:46, 21 February 2014 (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. Zambelo; talk 02:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree. I don't think mediation is called for at this point and I'd see no need to participate if I am listed. It's premature and, to be blunt, this is a single editor who appears very invested in this point (including edits elsewhere on Wikipedia) who has stated that he "shouldn't need to cite policy" [1] and has, to this point, not tried to use policy, guidelines or even essays to support his position. Instead, just repeated himself a lot and jumped straight to mediation. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 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.

• There is at least one other heavily involved editor in this dispute, Niteshift36, who should have been listed, but who has announced at the article talk page that he will not participate in mediation. A fourth editor from the talk page, Enric Naval, may ought to have been listed as well (though I'm not quite sure whether that was the same or a different dispute). I would ask the listing party, Zambelo, to list Niteshift36 at the very least and Enric Naval as well if that was the same dispute and to make certain that they're notified on their user talk pages if the bot does not notify them automatically within a couple of hours. If Niteshift36 does not choose to participate, then it is my recommendation that this request for mediation be denied. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)

• Recommend denial for reasons stated above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. The named parties do not agree to participate. For the mediation committee Sunray (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)