Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Categorisation of birds by location

Categorisation of birds by location

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Jameel the Saluki (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Couiros22 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Common hill myna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Category:Birds by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• User_talk:Couiros22#Common_hill_myna_categories
• Category_talk:Birds_by_location#Request for comment - Standard guidelines for categorisation by location needed
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Categorisation of animals by location, particularly birds

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. What is an appropriate method of categorising birds by location?
2. Current methodology appeared adequate. Couiros22 applying a new methodology with numerous issues not addressed
3. Application of new methodology not following the basic guidelines of categorisation with regards concurrent parent/grandparent entries Wikipedia:Categorization
4. Not reasonably objective, somewhat ad hoc, with apparent inconsistencies
5. The need for explanations and references to be introduced on category pages given that the method is too subjective not accepted
6. Explanatory - Although Couiros22 may have a valid methodology, after one month's discussion I am not much nearer to understanding the reasoning behind it and thus unable to properly assess the merits of it objectively. On the face of it I see a host of problems and inconsistencies which Couiros has dismissed as unimportant.

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. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 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. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The unclosed and unexpired RFC currently pending on this matter, noted above, is a dispute resolution proceeding. Even if that had not been the case, however, I would have rejected this request under prerequisite #9 with a recommendation that you take this to dispute resolution noticeboard first (though you will need for the RFC to expire or be closed first there as well). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)