Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Privilege

White Privilege

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Keith Johnston (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. White privilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:White_privilege#Critique-_-white_privilege_as_white_guilt_etc
• Talk:White_privilege#White_privilege#White_Privilege_as_ad_hominem_attack
• Talk:White_privilege/Archive_11#Proposed_criticism_section

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. 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

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. 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

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". 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)