Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Carmaker1 (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Cjhard (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 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)
- The date of 2000-01 provided, for an album released in late November 2001 for a holiday album (small project), was dubious to me. I investigated it and found no sources supporting it. I also found out, that this date was added by a vandal IP user in this diff on September 4, 2013. The article originally had the correct date of 2001 before that. The user that added it, is an IP user, that has a history of making such edits and at User_talk:63.92.231.105 has been warned about making erroneous entries/vandalism. That IP user provided no source/citation nor an explanation to support the addition of 2000-01 on September 4, 2013. Previously another user reverted my original correction, so I undid the revert and restored it on the basis that the evidence on the talk page, shows I was removing a vandalous edit and I also addressed it to that other user my disappointment with how they handled the matter to my bemusement. In their case, they understandably hadn't yet seen my proof from September 4, 2013 of 63.92.231.105's edit.
- Cjhard did not bother reading the evidence I provided on the talk page of why the erroneous addition by 63.92.231.105 needed to be removed and instead made a condescending edit summary towards me, claiming "Stop making unsourced additions". A hostile and inaccurate accusation. I will refrain from edit warring and do nothing else before a mediator sorts out this matter.
- 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. Carmaker1 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2017 (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 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". However, this would have almost certainly been rejected under prerequisite #9 even if there had been adequate discussion, but before trying other content dispute resolution note that Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard also have extensive-discussion requirements. If an editor will not discuss, see the recommendations at DISCFAIL. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
