Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox

Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article&#39;s infobox

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should the infobox in the article include a summary of dialects rather than list all of them with disputed claims on some dialects?
 * 2) Should a user revert anyone else's edit by avoiding to argue on the points supporting that edit listed on the discussion page even though another user has already agreed with most of these points?
 * 3) Should a group of two users ask to build consensus for every single change in an article even though they don't take into account that the change has already been discussed and approved on the discussion page?
 * 4) Should the user's argument be a consensus on the matter which he is unable to find and point to?
 * 5) Should a user find justification for the existence of a consensus in the complexity of the topic and try to explain that a consensus relevant to the matter in that specific article might exist on the discussion page of any related article?
 * 6) Where is the freedom to edit Wikipedia if things similar to this one happen on every single article on Wikipedia and the users reverting the edit don't pay attention on the points supporting the change and use a non-existing consensus as argument to support their position? (rhetoric question)


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

Comment by Taivo
This entire mediation is over a trivial edit and a waste of the committee's time. It boils down to one issue--Kiril Simeonovski has been unable to build a simple consensus because he has spent 90% of his time on the Talk Page trying to assuage his wounded ego rather than presenting his case simply and clearly without nesting it within personal attacks and demands for irrelevant apologies and unnecessary evidence. Just notice that only one of the filer's points above have anything whatsoever to do with the trivial edit he wants to make. The rest of his points have to do with massaging his bruised ego and making accusations against another editor. I have suggested an effective course to him on multiple occasions on the Talk Page: Start a new section, state his proposal simply and clearly with a sentence or two of justification, leave out all comments about other editors. He would have had a simple consensus two weeks (or more) ago had he done this. --Taivo (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kiril Simeonovski
Thank you Taivo for opening this section for comments. Sorry if you find this comment a bit longer, but my intend is to make it much clear why it's necessary to request mediation in this case. The whole issue about the edit is not that much related to the change, but it's more about the freedom to edit Wikipedia. I explained it numerous times on the talk page that my points supporting that specific edit were ignored, the user who reverted my edit refused to leave any comment about it, and later he was even supporting his action with a non-existing consensus. The last sentence is a classical example of restriction on the freedom and manipulation with the simplest rule that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Taivo may now be willing to propose different solutions to this problem that will work under normal circumstances, but this will only solve for the minor edit in the article and put this case in oblivion to encourage a similar anti-Wikipedian behaviour in near future. My main concern relating this issue is that the article is being controlled by a small group of users (probably only these two), who act upon their own rules and standards, evade the rules on Wikipedia, complement their opinions to each other, and do all that stuff in order to keep control on the article's content. If you go to check the archived discussions, you may find that a similar ownership-related behaviour was even present in some older discussions on the same article, but the users involved in that game were not so persistent to report this to higher authorities and thereby left that discussion to make this group feel stronger and encourage it to continue in the same fashion. I don't know if the same problem already exists on other articles, but this case could be a very good experience for the committee to deal with similar cases if they emerge in future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the forum for dealing with issues of editing behavior, Kiril. It is the forum for dealing with content issues where a consensus is impossible.  You have continually refused to heed my advice on the Talk Page to drop your personal accusations and focus simply and concisely on the trivial edit you are proposing.  By ignoring my suggestions, you have failed to build any consensus by hiding your trivial suggestion in the middle of your extensive attempts to get apologies for perceived wrongs and launch personal crusades against other editors.  Again, until you have actually made a good faith effort to drop your attacks on other editors, start a new section on the Talk Page, state your content proposal clearly and add a sentence or two of justification without personal attacks or reference to your wounded pride, then you have not made a good faith effort to build a consensus.  Without that clear, good faith effort, this is the wrong venue to pursue your aims.  This is a content venue, but your issue is over behavior since 90% of your comments both here and on the Talk Page have nothing whatsoever to do with a content dispute.  (And by "trivial" I don't mean "not serious", I mean "tiny, minor".)  --Taivo (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to reply on my every single comment. We need just Kwamikagami to leave a comment on this page expressing his views on the issue. My concern that some users implement their own rules and standards to bite other users from some pages on Wikipedia has been already discussed on several conferences in the past and many people are worried that this is a formidable problem which increases the level of self-created elitism and thus decreases the rate of editors' retention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you turned what should have been a simple process of consensus into a personal crusade against Kwami. When Kwami reverted you, instead of presenting a simple, clear proposal in a new section on the Talk Page, you continued to escalate the personal attacks against him because you felt wronged.  Did you try my suggestion?  No.  Not once.  You refused to give up on your personal need to have your ego massaged and some sort of "apology" expressed.  Your trivial change to the article simply got lost in your paragraphs of needless attacks and desires for retribution.  Try my suggestion, Kiril, and see how fast you can get a working consensus--1) Stop ALL your personal attacks and begging for apologies, 2) Start a new section on the Talk Page, 3) Present your change clearly in a single sentence, 4) Give no more than two sentences why the change makes sense, 5) Let the other editors support your change or present a clear case why it doesn't make sense.  You never tried this despite the fact that I have suggested it to you multiple times.  Your complaint is either about kwami, in which case it doesn't belong here and it doesn't belong on the Talk Page, or else you want to make your trivial change, in which case all your complaints about kwami are pointless and irrelevant.  --Taivo (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

More than seven days are already gone and there is still no acceptance on the mediation process nor there is any response on the request. I hope that some fruitful discussion will emerge after advertising this incident on the page for administrators. The scope of the discussion on that page is much broader and could mouth many different perspectives of this incident. Thank you anyway.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What's silly is that you continue to ignore my simple advice on how to build a consensus. I guess your personal pride and your desire to stick it to Kwami are more important than building a consensus for your trivial edit.  And, there is nothing on the page you linked to.  If there is, then you need to learn how to link to discussions properly.  --Taivo (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked only to inform that the next step is to advertise the case there. Sorry if you got it wrong.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This mediation request is a waste of the Mediation Committee's time. The dispute is primarily a figment of Kiril Simeonovski's imagination.  I have spelled out in very simple and clear terms on multiple occasions how Kiril can easily build consensus for his trivial change, but he refuses to put his wounded pride aside, stop the personal attacks and demands for an apology, and follow my advice.  --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Reject. Mediation occurs between two or more parties. Since the other parties do not agree, there is nothing to mediate. For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 *  Would you please edit the "Parties' agreement to mediation" section, above, to indicate either your acceptance or rejection of Mediation? Unless Kwamikagami chooses to express his acceptance or rejection, however, there is a very good chance (and, in that case, it is my recommendation that) this application be rejected. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) (as Committee member)
 * This strikes me as a waste of effort. The talk page has not been used for any real discussion.  — kwami (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)