Pharmacological torture
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Exonerated torturee (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Jytdog (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Pharmacological torture
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
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)
- Can someone please help mediate this? The other party continues to delete my content and replace it with watered-down versions.
- In one case, the other party removed portions of my content that were very easily verified by the title of the referenced pdf file. Knowing in advance that this user had an issue with my content edits, I chose to enter only the most easily-verifiable content, and yet still they were altered or deleted. Is there any rule against government agencies editing content in order to protect their interests? I'm not suggesting that's definitely what's happening here, but there does seem to be an intensely active effort to diffuse and mitigate references to the United States in this context.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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.
- Agree. Exonerated torturee (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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, that the "parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page." The "matter in dispute" must, per prerequisite to mediation #3, be about a content matter not a conduct matter. While there's been a good bit of discussion on both the article talk page and the filing party's
Jytdog's user talk page, most of it has been about conduct. When that's filtered out, there's been very little discussion which really gets down to the content that is in question. Note, moreover, that even if I had not rejected this case under prerequisite #4 I would have rejected it using the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite #9. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) Corrected. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The other party has been -- Behavioral issues: WP:Harassment: Wikihounding on my talk page, and has besmirched my motivation and given many ad hominem attacks since the very beginning. If Wikipedia does not choose to protect its newcomers from being accused of bad faith from the start, how exactly is fairness expected to be achieved? How can you reject a request for mediation so quickly, when there is so much evidence of personal attack and ad hominem attack on my talk page. This feels like hounding to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exonerated torturee (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
