Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chan Khong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chan Khong

[edit]
Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Otaku00 (talk · contribs) – filing party (for some reason, they give two ways to write my name here, I do not know why, the correct way is given in the following example, so this is one and the same person)
  2. otaku00 (talk · contribs)
  3. Helpsome (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. Chan Khong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

[[1]]

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. Point of view (neutrality not given)
  2. Published, reliable source given to counterpoint quotes from books of the portrayed person (Chan Khong) herself.Otaku00 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues (added by other parties)
  • Additional issue 1
  • Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

[edit]
  1. Agree. Otaku00 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. Otaku00 has tried repeatedly to add their interpretation to articles using primary sources. No matter how many times I have explained WP:OR, they continue. Then they tried getting a ruling in their favor from WP:DRN. It was denied. Now they are here. This is forum shopping and it is pointless. WP:OR is very clear and Otaku continues to violate it and vainly search for someone to agree with them anyway. Helpsome (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling was only denied because we did not have enough discussion - which we now have. I have applied for ruling again. But this is about ANOTHER topic, not this one (which I have just seen). Again, you mix two discussions up. Please treat them separately.

--Otaku00 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]