Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Languages used on the Internet

Languages used on the Internet

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

Languages used on the Internet
 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Languages used on the Internet

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) The editor erased my contribution and absolutely refused any further discussion on content on the article on the allegation that as an expert on the subject I have a "blatant conflict of interest", which is a definition of conflict of interest which does not fit in Conflict_of_interest and contradicts the expressed will of Wikipedia to see more experts contribute in their respective fields (see for example Why is Wikipedia losing contributors-Thinking about remedies). Furthermore, pretending as a definitive argument to refuse discussing on content that "I have asserted the methodology from my research is superior to the others" is absolutely false and therefore defaming: the contribution, which is still readable here just added a pedagogic introduction to a subject where too much confusion exists on the 2 main indicators, presented the historical controversy on the place of English, and exposed the view of the 3 existing sources and their differences without changing anything else, leaving the data from the other sources as it was and not promoting nor even listing the data from the new source.
 * 2) Leaving as it is (and as it has been for too long) an article within the scope of WikiProject Internet classified high importance without warning the readers about the biases of the different sources (two of them with business linkage), about the controversy on the real place of the English language on the Internet (as it is mentioned in the references prior to the erased contribution) and not discussing additional sources from non profit researchers (with long history of producing data on the subject) which not only propose alternative data but discuss the biases of all sources, is not a responsible way to deal with a subject of that importance and, maybe involuntarily, is making Wikipedia participate to rampant disinformation on that subject.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Danielpimienta (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe in a few weeks. I don't currently have time to get involved in a lengthy discussion. The editor's conflict of interest is evident and their claims about bias of other sources is entirely inappropriate. Any claims of bias should be attributed to the source (who is also the editor), not asserted in 'Wikipedia's voice'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Failed to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)