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)
Pride and supremacy articles
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a place to be censored and changed with bias, because some people disagree. I request that the admins come to an agreement on the rules, or at least agree that we treat these pages equally.
The act of pride itself, is not racist. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your culture. However, Wikipedia users, such as EvergreenFir mark
White pride as racist. The supremacy is racist, I will agree. And racist groups may claims white pride, but that doesn't make the sole act of pride racist. My issue mainly though, is that users claimthat
Black Supremacy is not racist, and claims we need sources proving it it (despite the term 'supremacy' being racist in itself).Currently the source for white pride being racist is an editorial piece [
Daily Dot] and marked as 'Opinion'.
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.
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. No parties listed other than the listing party. Had there been other parties listed, however, to the extent this dispute involves the Black supremacy RFC it would have been refused under
prerequisite to mediation #8 due to that RFC not yet being completed. If that is not essential to the case, feel free to refile but you must list all other editors involved in the dispute. For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 18:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) And one more word: This is not the place to request anything of administrators, but the place to request
mediation. If you wish to make a request of administrators, make a request at
WP:AN or
WP:ANI. -
TransporterMan (
TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC) And one more thing (sorry for the serial edit), even if I had not rejected this for one of the foregoing reasons, I very well might have rejected it for additional talk page discussion and/or processing at lower levels of dispute resolution such as
WP:DRN under prerequisite for mediation #9. Whether sources are or are not reliable can often be worked out at
Reliable sources noticeboard. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 18:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)reply