Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jat People

Disagree with mediation request

I disagree with this request for mediation. No other form of dispute resolution has been attempted, other than a brief thread on the article talk page. Further, the nominator clearly does not understand policies such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SYNTHESIS - consensus, for example, is not about which group of people shouts loudest but rather about which can justify something based on policy. The consensus is in fact clear on the content issue in question. Furthermore, the Mediation Committee is not the place to examine editor behaviour, which is a primary element of the nomination. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with mediation request

The editor Sithush, is not allowing other editors to introduce certain edits in the article. I agree that WP: Synthesis suggests that No Original Research should be used in article and hence if two journals are claiming two different claims then both should be introduced side by side.

Sithush is giving this article a particular tilt. By branding the community as "non elite tillers and herders", he is violating wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

It is not about talking loud but since wikipedia is a community project and majority of editors on "Jat People" talk page are suggesting that phrase "non elite tillers and herders" be dropped and a more neutral phrase should be introduced in its place. I introduced a neutral phrase based on that but my edits were consequently reverted by Sithush. -Viplovecomm (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viplovecomm, slow down and calm down, and learn a bit of patience - you have barely started the discussion on the article talk page and have allowed almost zero time for anyone to take part. It is nowhere near time for mediation, so wind in the Battlefield mentality, stop the personal accusations, and discuss this in a civil manner and await consensus, OK? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Ok Sir, I am backing off, I've listed the sources and issues, now its upto wikipedia's vibrant community, whatever they decide. If telling the thing that an editor is censoring the genuine edits of other editors is "Personal Attacks", then what can i say any further. regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you can do is assume good faith (see WP:AGF), listen to their explanations for what they are doing, compare them to actual Wikipedia policies, allow consensus to develop, and not accuse people who disagree with you of "censorship". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]