Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Black people

Black people

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. DanJazzy (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Soupforone (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Black people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Black_people#Article clean up

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. Should the article be balanced with more information about black people other than slavery?
2. Should photos of Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane be added to the appropriate sections of the article?
3. Should the article have more information on the diversity of peoples within Africa, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc?

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. DanJazzy (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Refuse. I refuse this voluntary mediation as per WP:MEDIATION. Reasons-- (1) There are actually three involved parties rather than just two as claimed above, with Jamie Tubers being the other involved party. (2) There is already a discussion on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1. NB The "three involved parties" excuse is bizarre. There is evidence of WP:TAGTEAM between two editors. Please see [1]. There is no progress on the talk page because of WP:OWN issues. There is absolutely no compromise on the talk page even on addition of photographs with citations. There is evidence of underhanded attempts to delete previous consensus. [2]--DanJazzy (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
2. There's no WP:TAGTEAM going on. I have been a major contributor to the article, Soupforone notified me of the ongoing discussion, because I have not been very much online these days, and he probably thinks I deserve to be part of any consensus. In any case, you're the one not yielding in the discussion. You've been asked to provide explicit sources proving the validness of your additions, you never did. You also wanted to add images where there's no clear sources affirming what the subjects identify as; well, you haven't provided any. It's not allowed on Wikipedia to twist facts and sources, or cherry pick sources, just to let your narrative stand on an article. Your contributions are very unneutral and are borderline disruptive.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
3. NB: The evidence speaks for itself. I have provided sources in the talk page[3],[4] which have been completely disregarded and ignored. A University of Alabama study and an article from award winning author Jared Diamond are not "cherry picking" but a solid RS. There is prima farcie evidence of WP:TAGTEAM here [5] and here [6]. There is evidence of WP:OWN in this article's edit history as well as talk page. There is prima farcie evidence of an editor attempting to delete previous consensus unilaterally and attempting to subvert the process of consensus[7]. I urge the administration to look at the evidence. It's all there. DanJazzy (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE allows messages "on the user talk pages of concerned editors", which includes editors like Jamie Tubers "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article". Please also respect the WP:CIVility policy. Anyway, your source was actually published in the Journal of Black Studies, an advocacy publication whose founding editor is the Afrocentric writer Molefi Kete Asante. This is not reliable, nor does it have any bearing on the legal ethnic classification in Israel of the Beta Israel. There was also no consensus for the phrase on "Khoisan...", which was appended without discussion back in 2007 [8]. This will be my last reply on this tripe. Soupforone (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

NB Out of the sources cited [9] is from the University of Alabama while [10] is an article by Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond.It is not clear here what "Afrocentric" means and it is equally unclear whether the University of Alabama is an "Afrocentric" institution. Is Jared Diamond an "Afrocentric" as well?

My earlier evidence on clear violations of Wikipedia policy stand. Lastly, calling other user's contribution "tripe" is the very definition of "uncivility" DanJazzy (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2018 (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: Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)