Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Intercontinental Cup

Intercontinental Cup

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. El cazador (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. El cazador (talk · contribs)
3. the IPS who are reversing my editions (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Intercontinental Cup

1. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Balloon animal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Balloon#I disagree with this edit

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 made changes in the aforementioned artcile.

1- I took out the de facto expression. Though the meaning of the expression de facto is quite clear (as opposed to de jure), the exact expression doesnt appear on any source. Therefore it is better to take it out, on order to avoid controversies (which have ocurred in the past referring to that expression).

2- I changed the "recognised as" (which sounds a bit like "by an authority") to "regarded as" (sounds more neutral). I am out of time to do it myself now, but I suggest looking for sources which called the IC a world title (newspapers, club sites, etc) and put them on links after the words "regarded as".

3- Though it is not explicitly stated, the text sounds a little bit like it was suggesting a sort of "equivalence" of "worth" (or impact) between the IC and FCWC. Thus, to make the article sound more neutral, I added FIFA sources indicating differences between the IC and FCWC. To avoid any controversies, I wrote the words exactly as they appear on the FIFA sources, and to make verification easier, I quoted them in the source links and CAPITALISED the quoted words.

Some IPs reversed my edititions with the following arguments:

: The claim "world champion" had sense until last 1990 when at club level EUR and S.America were the club football's top level and the IC, the only cup who crushed them as written in all that sources. Add de facto have sense because the tournament was not "worldwide" in legal terms, but inter-confederative. But football changes, through its legal value as the current tournament has not representing the highest level because that is exclusively in Western Europe.--2001:1388:3:5D39:E5B8:3878:F370:339E (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. De facto and de jure are not opposites, they are complementary, as the front and back sides of a coin.

And then I replied:

: Sir, your are mistaken. Your claims about the superiority of Euro and South American teams are right, as are right your claims that this is the reason why the competition was regarded as a club world championship. However, in the present form of this article, it looks like it is saying the IC and FCWC are competitions of equal "worth/impact" (or whatever), and it can't be like that, as it would be NPOV about the "perceived" "value/impact/worth" of teh competitions. Besides it, the words I am writing are EXACTLY the same words present on teh FIFA.com sources, which are quite authoritative in this sense.El cazador (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: Sir. Wikipedia is made on sources The contents I am adding are the exact same words of the FIFA.com site, which is the most authoritative on the subject. I am adding these words to make the article more neutral, in that its former form was suggesting a kind of "equivalence" of "value/impact/dimension" (whatever) between the IC and FCWC, which would be POV. I see that you comments based on opinions , some of which are really based on facts (the IC was called world title due to the strength of Europe and South America) and others are merely unsourced opinion of yours (the comments "until last 1990", your comment on the relation between de jure and de facto concepts).

Well, I found it unacceptable that an IP might erase words quoted exactly as they are from the FIFA.com because they dont fit his/her opinion. I warn I will demand Wikipedia mediation, and you wll have the chance to explain why you think we can´t cite the exact words of football most important web-site. El cazador (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I check the loaction of the IPs, and they are Peru. I cant make accusations, but I do not doubt these IPs are the same Peruvian user who times ago used to controll this page (according to my checking the Historic of editions) and who is using IP nows as he knows that he is erasing sourced content and then making a trangression to Wikiepdia rules. Well, as said, I will demand mediation on the issue. El cazador (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked the origin of the IPs . They are Peru. I checked the history of the editions of the page, and this articles has always been kind of "controlled" by a Peruvian (or so he says) Dantetheperuvian. I have no proof but I believe these IPs are Dantetheperuvian. I think that he will not stop erasing the contents and replacing them with their opinion.

I once again say that I did NOT erase any content put in the article by any user, and all the contents I put are the exact same words of the FIFA.com source.

In very short short, I am making additions to the article (NOT erasing any sourced content) copying the exact same words, ippsis litteris, of the most authoritative source on the issue, FIFA.com, what I am doing exactly to try to avoid controversies. IPs have been erasing my editions beacuse they do not fit their opinions. By the way, these IPs are from Peru, and I do not accuse but do not doubt they belong to user Dantetehperuvian, who has a historic of imposing his views on this article. El cazador (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

El cazador (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Should the two articles be merged?
2. Should the picture in the lead of Balloon be a helium balloon or a hot air balloon?

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. El cazador (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2016 (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. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for 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". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)