Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Languages used on the Internet

Languages used on the Internet

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

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Danielpimienta (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Jeffro77 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Languages used on the Internet

1. Languages used on the Internet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful

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. The editor erased my contribution and absolutely refused any further discussion on content on the article on the allegation that as an expert on the subject I have a "blatant conflict of interest", which is a definition of conflict of interest which does not fit in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and contradicts the expressed will of Wikipedia to see more experts contribute in their respective fields (see for example Why is Wikipedia losing contributors-Thinking about remedies). Furthermore, pretending as a definitive argument to refuse discussing on content that "I have asserted the methodology from my research is superior to the others" is absolutely false and therefore defaming: the contribution, which is still readable here just added a pedagogic introduction to a subject where too much confusion exists on the 2 main indicators, presented the historical controversy on the place of English, and exposed the view of the 3 existing sources and their differences without changing anything else, leaving the data from the other sources as it was and not promoting nor even listing the data from the new source.
2. Leaving as it is (and as it has been for too long) an article within the scope of WikiProject Internet classified high importance without warning the readers about the biases of the different sources (two of them with business linkage), about the controversy on the real place of the English language on the Internet (as it is mentioned in the references prior to the erased contribution) and not discussing additional sources from non profit researchers (with long history of producing data on the subject) which not only propose alternative data but discuss the biases of all sources, is not a responsible way to deal with a subject of that importance and, maybe involuntarily, is making Wikipedia participate to rampant disinformation on that subject.

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. Danielpimienta (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Maybe in a few weeks. I don't currently have time to get involved in a lengthy discussion. The editor's conflict of interest is evident and their claims about bias of other sources is entirely inappropriate. Any claims of bias should be attributed to the source (who is also the editor), not asserted in 'Wikipedia's voice'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2018 (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: Failed to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)