Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle

Assault rifle

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Assault rifle

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should the article suppress the narrative that there was any development of assault rifle concepts or intermediate cartridges outside germany before the StG-44 or the german machine carbine program started?


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Thomas.W
I have no intention of taking part in this ridiculous forum shopping. The disagreement on Assault rifle isn't about "suppressing" any information, it is about TeeTylerToe claiming that the first assault rifle wasn't the StG-44 but a totally unknown American weapon from 1917, "The Burton Balloon Buster", a weapon that doesn't fit the mainstream definition of "assault rifle", was never intended to be an infantry rifle (only to destroy observation balloons, mounted on an aircraft), and never entered service. A view he hasn't gotten any support for on Talk:Assault rifle, just like he didn't get any support for his views, and his claim that the article violates WP:NPOV at the NPOV noticeboard. He is currently also edit-warring to keep a frivolous POV-tag on the article, added because of him not getting his way. A quick look on his talk page also shows that what he's been doing on Assault rifle, i.e. pushing fringe ideas, posting endless walls of text on the talk page to wear people down, and edit-war until he gets his way, is his standard way of doing things, and something he has been blocked for multiple times. Thomas.W talk 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." An active RFC is such a proceeding. Once the RFC has been closed, this or some other form of dispute resolution may be used, but if you do refile here or at dispute resolution noticeboard, please be sure to list all of the editors substantially involved in the discussion; I note at the talk page that at least one and perhaps more have not been listed here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)