Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dispute over content involving Australian History

Dispute over content involving Australian History

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Redbacks Again (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Meters (talk · contribs)
3. Mendaliv (talk · contribs)
4. General Ization (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

all edits by me relating to The Madagascar and The 1853 Escort Robbery

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

‪Meters‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frank the Poet. Users are expected to collaborate with...

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

Meters‬ mentioned you on the ‪Bully Hayes‬ talk page in "‪material removed‬".

Some five years ago I included updates on Bully Hayes and a collection of other men associated with the McIvor Escort Robbery in 1853 and the sinki...

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

‪Meters‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

You are going to get yourself blocked if you keep this up.

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

‪Meters‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthes...

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

‪Meters‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

Dear Medaliv: You are wrong my interest is in providing objective historical fact. I quote the book so that people can see the research for themse...

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!

2h

‪Meters‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

Hello, I'm Meters. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Frank the Poet have been removed because they seemed to b...

‪Meters‬

View changes

2h

‪Mendaliv‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪October 2017‬".

Hello, I'm Mendaliv. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Madagascar (ship) have been undone because they app...

‪Mendaliv‬

View changes

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. Deletion of my content by these editors and threat of banning if I continue. Refusal of these editors to discuss my arguments resulting in me having no choice but to refer to committee.
2. Attempt to confound and compound the issue by obfuscation of issue into issues about policy.
3. Significant issue about validity and authenticity of my research and the destruction of the historical record by the wiki sites.

My edits involving these series of events are a result of 25 years of research my website www.thesilentmoon.com displays most of this primary source evidence. The edits I included on Wiki were placed there to indicate to people that the existing knowledge and reported events are wrong and I have proved that. I included references to my book and website so that readers could not only check my sources and evidence but also to make their own decisions. The current wiki information is very wrong and historically very inaccurate. If wiki doesn't want me to quote my book as a source (the book has an isbn and is totally legitimate) I don't care but academically that is more dishonest. In they first instance if my entries were going to be edited then the editors should have provided me with the courtesy of letting me know what their problem was. They didn't. I had no idea how my information had been removed. By attempting to undo their edits I was able to identify who these editors were and then when I attempted to explain the story they totally dismissed my argument and stated that it was my opinion and I was self promoting and that I was not allowed to do anymore editing of the pages. This was after I went back and removed the reference to my book so it was clear they had no intention of letting me place any information on these pages. I was of the opinion that Wiki had at its core a view that knowledge was open and available to all people. In this case Wiki is controlling and suppressing the facts around these events and is presenting misinformation and poorly researched opinion as fact. At the moment Wiki editors and controllers have an advantage over me in that all attempts by me to discuss are being blocked in a sea of procedures that make no sense to me.

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.

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." At least based on what has been said so far, even if there had been sufficient discussion this would probably have been rejected under prerequisite to mediation #9, but with additional discussion that might change. In light of issues #1 and #2, the filing party should refer to the advice given at DISCFAIL but this advice should not be understood to imply that the other editors either have or have not acted improperly in failing to discuss. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)