Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)

Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) The date of 2000-01 provided, for an album released in late November 2001 for a holiday album (small project), was dubious to me. I investigated it and found no sources supporting it. I also found out, that this date was added by a vandal IP user in this diff on September 4, 2013. The article originally had the correct date of 2001 before that. The user that added it, is an IP user, that has a history of making such edits and at User_talk:63.92.231.105 has been warned about making erroneous entries/vandalism. That IP user provided no source/citation nor an explanation to support the addition of 2000-01 on September 4, 2013. Previously another user reverted my original correction, so I undid the revert and restored it on the basis that the evidence on the talk page, shows I was removing a vandalous edit and I also addressed it to that other user my disappointment with how they handled the matter to my bemusement. In their case, they understandably hadn't yet seen my proof from September 4, 2013 of 63.92.231.105's edit.
 * 2) Cjhard did not bother reading the evidence I provided on the talk page of why the erroneous addition by 63.92.231.105 needed to be removed and instead made a condescending edit summary towards me, claiming "Stop making unsourced additions". A hostile and inaccurate accusation. I will refrain from edit warring and do nothing else before a mediator sorts out this matter.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Carmaker1 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #4 "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice". However, this would have almost certainly been rejected under prerequisite #9 even if there had been adequate discussion, but before trying other content dispute resolution note that Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard also have extensive-discussion requirements. If an editor will not discuss, see the recommendations at DISCFAIL. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)