Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Indigenous Aryan Theory



Request Details

 * Request made by: Sbhushan (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Indigenous Aryan Theory (talk)


 * Who's involved?
 * Dbachmann (talk), Paul Barlow (talk), Rudrasharman (talk)


 * What's going on?
 * This article was created around Dec last year based on two words "Indigenous Aryanism" used in Bryant (2001). At that time lots of editors had objected to creation of this please see here [] and [].  I have been asking for verifiable citation for this "theory" since Feb 13th on this talk page and at Indo-Aryan Migration talk page.  I provided verifiable relevent content based on Bryant 2001 to the article since yesterday and removed original research.  Please see discussion here [].  Dab is reverting the properly citied content and replacing with original research.  He believes that we can take 2 seperate word and create a theory out of that.  I have provided him reference that this is considered "further analysis" of authors position and original research.  I have requested "third party mediation", but I saw on the page that it depends when someone will get involved.  Please also see another mediation effort by Geo against Dab at []


 * Dab also abused his admin power by blocking me in a content dispute. I have requested a review by an independent admin for that action.


 * The involved parties do not seem to understand that unless an author has argued for a position in a published material, it is called original research. If a citation is not provided for a controversial content, it can be removed by anyone.  Also removing properly cited relevent material is bad faith editing.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * enforce WP:ATT policy and remove original research
 * Dab is supposed to be an admin, but he is worst offender with history of OR and providing incorrect citation
 * He is also very uncivil in his conduct


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No, please get involved on the Talk page

Mediator response
Accepting case.
 * anthony cfc [ talk] 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Parties do not agree to mediation - see this diff. Closing mediation as unsuccessful. anthony cfc [ talk] 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)