Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Retrospect (software)

Retrospect (software)

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. DovidBenAvraham (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. scope_creep (talk · contribs)
3. JohnInDC (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Retrospect (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:Retrospect_(software)#.22Advertising.22_and_.22marketing.22_terms_in_Retrospect.2C_and_other_disputed_matters

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. scope_creep believes he/she has the right to edit "advertising" and "marketing" terms out of the article; DovidBenAvraham says scope_creep's criteria for these terms are not per any WP standard.
2. scope_creep believes DovidBenAvraham has lost all rights to edit the article without prior consensus from other editors as a result of an RfC decision to reduce the size of the article; DovidBenAvraham believes this total loss-of-rights is a misunderstanding of the RfC decision (which DovidBenAvraham has never actually seen in writing) by scope_creep .
3. JohnInDC took the initiative in substantially reducing the size of the article, because he felt that DovidBenAvraham was moving too slowly in doing so; JohnInDC has since retroactively accepted some of DovidBenAvraham's after-reduction edits, provided they did not seem to be making the article more complex again in violation of the RfC decision.

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 as both filing party and as editor involved in dispute. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (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. Pursuant to prerequisite to mediation #9, the Committee "has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." This case really needs to go to DRN before coming here. A word of advice to the filing party: Content resolution forums such as this and DRN do not handle matters concerning editor conduct and your second point, above, is clearly about conduct. If you wish to pursue that point, you should probably take it to ANI rather than try to raise it here or at DRN. For the Mediation Committee, 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)