Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New editor requires assistance on various finer points of several MoSes

New editor requires assistance on various finer points of several MoSes

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) The introduces a sea of red and most of the subjects will never get articles so it's in violation of WP:REDNOT.
 * 2) It also adds references in headings, which is a violation of MOS:HEADING: "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings".

The editor has been here since 2009-01-01, more than eight years, so new editor may not be correct, and has racked-up more than 6,000 edits, but it is my considered opinion that the editor needs some clear direction.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #3, "The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor". The proper way to address the behavior of an editor is to speak to an administrator or file a report at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. But note that this request would almost certainly have been rejected under prerequisite #9 even if it had been about the question of whether the redlinks and headings were proper (rather than, as it was, the question about whether the editor's behavior in entering them was proper based on the filing party's firm conclusion that they are improper; and let me note that by that statement I do not intend to imply any opinion pro or con about whether that conclusion was or was not correct). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * I understand your opinion. This isn't about behaviour but about interpretation of a MoS. If that is ultimately about behaviour, that's fine. And ANI is also not the correct way to address this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)