Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/LA Models

LA Models

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * I find this WP:COI nomination in conflict with previous advice and guidance given by other Admins, and the "calling out" within breaking of WP:AGF

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Breaking of WP:AGF by Justlettersandnumbers - request for mediation ==
 * 2) I request mediation between myself and Justlettersandnumbers. I have no problem standing behind my edit record, or the start of a contributor copyright investigation but I find this WP:COI nomination in conflict with previous advice and guidance given by other Admins, and the "calling out" within breaking of WP:AGF. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * I have no idea of the background of interactions between and .  My attention was caught by the posting at COIN, and particular by this remark by Trident13 in which he/she says "I am quite happy to admit that I create paid for articles" and "f I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so."  The Terms of Use were amended on June 16 of this year to make disclosure of paid contributions an obligation.  Before then, under the COI guideline, paid editors were strongly encouraged to disclose paid editing. I don't see how Trident13's behavior complies with the spirit or letter of the COI guideline, nor  - and more importantly - the Terms of Use since June 16.  To the extent that Trident13 filed this request in response to Justlettersandnumbers' calling Trident13's attention to these obligations, I have a hard time seeing any valid ground for Trident13's stance.   If there are other grounds, again, I am not aware of them as I haven't examined the history of the interaction.  I am focused just on Trident13's failure to disclose paid contributions.Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Trident13 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that there's anything to mediate here - I listed the article at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard with some fairly damning evidence, and immediately and "happily" admitted his paid editing; I've since added some other comments and questions. But I agreed to participate in whatever mediation he chose, and willingly stand by that agreement if there seems to be any point in it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Recommend rejection: Per Mediation Prerequisite #3: "The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor..." — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)
 * Reject. Per TransporterMan, this dispute is about the behavior of a WP editor. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)