Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Privilege

White Privilege

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:White_privilege
 * Talk:White_privilege
 * Talk:White_privilege/Archive_11

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Claims previous RfC regarding critique section nullifies all contents, when in fact Rfc was a discussion around whether or not to create a critique section. I argue critique exists and is available via RS so should be included in article.


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

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Keith Johnston (Talk) 21:24, 2 December 2017‎
 * 2) Disagree. First, there are more than two parties to this dispute. Second, this is a simple case of an editor who refuses to get the point. He has started multiple discussions in which his argument has been refuted. He started an RfC in which consensus was against his argument. His solution has been to ignore all that and periodically add material to the article, contra consensus, and challenge other editors to describe their objections to the specific sources in the latest addition. He may think the slow drip, drip, drip will wear down other editors and change their minds. It won't, and the next stop is WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to meet prerequisite for mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation". Even if the case had not been rejected for that reason, it would have probably been rejected nonetheless under prerequisite #4 or #9. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)