Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews

Erica Andrews

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute
 * Erica Andrews


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * Erica Andrews talk page.

Issues to be mediated
''All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.''


 * Primary issues
 * Deletion of Andrews' pageant titles despite the information being sourced to a published book.
 * Deletion of Andrews' participation in TV talk shows (Maury Povich Show and Tyra Banks Show), films, music videos and stage production. Information about her film is sourced to New York Times and information from her participation in stage production is sourced to LGBT newspapers that covered the productions at the time. Information can also be verified by one of the directors of her plays at the time. Information about her participation in talk show is evidenced by visual recognition of Andrews and when Maury Povich and Tyra Banks mentions Andrews by name in the shows. Information was sourced according to Wikipedia's template for AV Media where air dates, season and episode numbers were listed. Information about participation in TV documentary show (Trantasia) is sourced to Amazon.com (ASIN is available) and other publications where a listing of the cast is detailed. Information about Andrews' participation in music video Maroon5 is through visual recognition of Andrews at a particular time marker. Since music videos do not detail their full cast on their credits, arguably this is the only method to know it is Andrews in the video. This and that those who knew her in real life can attest to that she was in the music video. Admittedly this is weak as it could be argued these are not reliable sources but this is still nevertheless background information about Andrews that should not be deleted. Many other articles on actors do not cite sources for all their work in movies or videos. It is listed on the article unless the information is disputed by others. Information about Andrews being in those videos is not disputed by anyone on Wikipedia or in real life who knew her work. I have verified this in real life with sources who were very close to her. If the information were disputed heavily for factual correctness, I would agree that we should delete as we do not want to publish lies that harm the article or Wikipedia's reputation. I had left a message on Qworty's talk page a short while back where I notified him/her that I would revert his/her edits to list the content out in a table like it was previously. I mentioned I did some research and found out that Wikipedia prefers that the AV Media template be used and TV episodes are sourced according to their episode or season number, production studio that created it, and including the time marker when the said interesting event occurs. Qworty did not bother to reply which I can only assume he/she agreed. When I replaced the information on April 29, 2013 and sourced according to Wikipedia's AV template and also used the published book as a source, Qworty, Little_green_rosetta and Coffeepusher resorted to an edit war with me.
 * 3 of these authors (Qworty, Little_green_rosetta and Coffeepusher) know each other from previous collaboration and thus are NOT impartial participants. Even though Wikipedia says that disputes can be settled by 2-3 other editors, this is an anomaly to the situation since these 3 authors know each other from previous collaboration and not impartial and their very biased support of each other over this article is very immature at best. Their edit decisions are poorly made and it is obvious that this article requires mediation to resolve the issues. They have conducted themselves very poorly. They have had a history of rampant deletion of content (as evidence on their own talk page by others complaining about their behavior). They should recuse themselves from editing this article due to their impartiality. Despite my reasoning and request to just tag the information requesting for additional sources or that they themselves indulge in research to discover better sources of information to back the data listed on the page or to replace with other content, they have refused to do so and have decided to delete the information without any regard for if the information has any value to a reader. I have told them that it is customary on Wikipedia to not rampantly delete information but to discuss it through with the author about edits. They have not bothered to reach out for amicable discussions. They have resorted to edit wars and disruptive editing behavior.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation
''All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.''
 * 1) Agree. Lightspeedx (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. Request fails the prerequisites 4&8 for mediation.  This request was filed the exact same day as Dispute resolution noticeboard by the same user, no other formal attempts have been completed.  Apparent WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.''
 * As Coffeepusher notes, at the moment there is ongoing discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also, considering this request for mediation has been open for a couple of weeks, and no-one else apart from Lightspeedx has agreed to mediation, I think this request should be declined. Obviously, if the issues can't be resolved by the volunteers helping at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, a new request could be filed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)