Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Retrospect (software)

Retrospect (software)

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute

Talk:Retrospect_(software)
 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) scope_creep believes he/she has the right to edit "advertising" and "marketing" terms out of the article; DovidBenAvraham says scope_creep's criteria for these terms are not per any WP standard.
 * 2) scope_creep believes DovidBenAvraham has lost all rights to edit the article without prior consensus from other editors as a result of an RfC decision to reduce the size of the article; DovidBenAvraham believes this total loss-of-rights is a misunderstanding of the RfC decision (which DovidBenAvraham has never actually seen in writing) by scope_creep.
 * 3) JohnInDC took the initiative in substantially reducing the size of the article, because he felt that DovidBenAvraham was moving too slowly in doing so; JohnInDC has since retroactively accepted some of DovidBenAvraham's after-reduction edits, provided they did not seem to be making the article more complex again in violation of the RfC decision.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree as both filing party and as editor involved in dispute. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Pursuant to prerequisite to mediation #9, the Committee "has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." This case really needs to go to DRN before coming here. A word of advice to the filing party: Content resolution forums such as this and DRN do not handle matters concerning editor conduct and your second point, above, is clearly about conduct. If you wish to pursue that point, you should probably take it to ANI rather than try to raise it here or at DRN. For the Mediation Committee, 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)