Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chan Khong

Chan Khong

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Otaku00 (talk · contribs) – filing party (for some reason, they give two ways to write my name here, I do not know why, the correct way is given in the following example, so this is one and the same person)
2. otaku00 (talk · contribs)
3. Helpsome (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Chan Khong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

[[1]]

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:otaku00#I disagree with this edit

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Point of view (neutrality not given)
2. Published, reliable source given to counterpoint quotes from books of the portrayed person (Chan Khong) herself.Otaku00 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Otaku00 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. No. Otaku00 has tried repeatedly to add their interpretation to articles using primary sources. No matter how many times I have explained WP:OR, they continue. Then they tried getting a ruling in their favor from WP:DRN. It was denied. Now they are here. This is forum shopping and it is pointless. WP:OR is very clear and Otaku continues to violate it and vainly search for someone to agree with them anyway. Helpsome (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The ruling was only denied because we did not have enough discussion - which we now have. I have applied for ruling again. But this is about ANOTHER topic, not this one (which I have just seen). Again, you mix two discussions up. Please treat them separately.

--Otaku00 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject Fails to meet Prerequisite for Mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)