Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Api chaining

Api chaining

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Orubel2 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)
3. orubel (talk · contribs)

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.

Articles or pages involved in this dispute

API Chaining
API Abstraction

Previous discussions concerning this dispute (e.g. talk page threads) or previous attempts at dispute resolution

Was blocked by Bbb23 for warring over adding ongoing legal issues with creating of derivatives works of Api Chaining and Api Abstraction by CEO Sanjiva Weerawarana. After being blocked (both acct and IP), JamesBWatson marked both articles for removal (even though they are part of Grails (which is used by Netflix, LinkedIn etc), was in talk at SpringOne (largest Spring conference in the world) and am in talk with OReilly about book deal and just released article for them). By blocking my acct and IP, I am not given an opportunity to FIX or REPLY on these pages and thus cannot REBUT.

When I tried to dispute this with editors via another IP (as I cannot login), JamesBWatson it 'IP dodging' (or something like that) and blocked me again when I am just trying to have a conversation and follow your guidelines for having conversation and resolve dispute. I cannot have conversation as my IP is blocked and other pagesfor reporting administrative behavoiur are unavailable. I can't resolve dispute if they keep blocking and JamesBWatson blocks me when I try to follow guidelines and have conversation with him while I am blocked via the admin resolution pages.

They ridiculed my attempts on orubel talk page to resolve, they block me when trying to talk during admin resolution. This is NOT professional in any manner.

(e.g. archived DRN threads or closed RFCs). Don't forget to use wikilinks.

What the dispute is about; the primary issues. Explain exactly what it is the editors involved in this dispute cannot reach an agreement over. The other editors can add secondary issues if they so wish, which will also be considered by the mediator.

Primary issue is blocking people who wish to have converstion and removing pages from one party in a legal dispute illegal represents one side of the legal dispute; as I have common law copyright in an existing working product which predates any reference by their article, existing law states my work is more enforcable while I wait on copyright from US copyright office. Even so, representing one side of a legal dispute by removing content while they cannot defend themselves is against 'code of conduct' and 'conflict of interest' rules. Ridiculing attempts to communicate and continually blocking when honest efforts to communicate are being made also go against these rules.

If these articles in question do NOT supply good enough references of being in an industry supplied project, being referenced by several different conferences as source then you need to start removing alot of technical and scientific pages from wikipedia as authors of scientific papers are source but being recognized by industry is what makes the standard... such as recognition my large conferences and being part of large projects. This is recognition and reference of authors work as you have to apply and be accepted by a larger community body.

If the editor has issue with writing style, that is not means for removal, that is means for mentioning an improvement to style or templating. You can't improve wikipedia by removing information... you improve by formatting the information.

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. Orubel2 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 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.

• Rejected — Block evasion by Orubel, currently blocked for two weeks beginning November 7. Also fails Prerequisite for Mediation #3, as it is about conduct, not content, and formal mediation is only for content. Either rationale, however, justifies rejection. (If you wish to appeal your block, follow the instructions at Appealing a block.) For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)