Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bowling Green, Kentucky rail section is removed from transportation section

Bowling Green, Kentucky rail section is removed from transportation section

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Dogru144 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Dogru144 (talk · contribs)
3. John from Idegon (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Bowling Green, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Balloon#Why has the city's economically important rail history been deleted?

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. Should the article carry no section on rail transportation?
2. Should the article carry no content on the city's past role in passenger rail transportation because there is freight rail in the present?
3. Should another wikipedia article not serve as documentation?
4. Should a scanned original passenger timetable for the railroad and city under dispute not serve as a valid reference?

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. Dogru144 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. no. John from Idegon (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dogru144 is not engaging in any constructive discussion at the talk page. Mediation is pointless as there is nothing to mediate at this time. he has not responded to even one of my arguments or made any attempt to reach a consensus. When the complainant is the one editing in bad faith, why should I allow his forum shopping (This is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring also) dictate my response? Please explain the facts of life to the complainer. Frankly he should be sanctioned for forum shopping.

As there are only 2 of 4 valid points above (The last two are invalid on first read from WP:RS) and I am not in disagreement with him on either this entire request is malformed. I do not see what good either this or WP:3O would do when the other fella is absolutely refusing to discuss anything in good faith. This is not an article content issue it is an editor behavior issue and I am done dealing with it. So if one of you good folks here might be willing to do some education ahead of mediation and explain things to the other fella, perhaps this will get resolved without any bloodshed. John from Idegon (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The door is still open to discussion. If he's not in disagreement on some points, that's a good start. I would think it unfair for me to be sanctioned for the edit warring notice, since he did the same at 6:09 August 12 (3 minutes after his 3rd reversion). The guidelines above say "If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution." So, how about it? Still open to mediation.Dogru144 (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dogru144, but mediation would not have accepted this as you have made no good faith effort to reach a consensus. WP:3O should also be attempted prior to mediation. So you can accept that and come back to the talk page and attempt to discuss the issue in good faith, or you can wait until the mediation committee tells you the exact same thing. Up to you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 12 August 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. Parties do not agree to mediation. Suggest resolving this on the article talk page. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)