Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/E104421 and Tajik

The following discussion is an archived record of a Community enforceable mediation. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

E104421 (talk · contribs) and Tajik (talk · contribs) edit

E104421, sign here: E104421 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik, Sign here: Tājik 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion edit

These two users has been long engaging in reverting each other, and was currently indef banned. I think this is a perfect example of a case of community enforceable mediation, and I recommend remedies like 0RR of each others edits. I have unblocked the parties so that they may sign this request. _→AzaToth 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They where in december sat on a 1RR parole by Fut. Perf. [1] _→AzaToth 15:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and [3] _→AzaToth 15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the impression that these two users want to do good things, but can't keep out of each others work. _→AzaToth 15:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no they havn't been banned per se, they have had a 1RR on them, but they where indef blocked. _→AzaToth 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of background, as I've been involved in watching these two for several months. They keep getting into conflicts typically all related to similar, ethnically motivated issues: it's about medieval central Asian ethnicities and how to characterise their cultural characteristics and continuity with present-day nationalities. What we need is probably a long-term solution, not just a mediation of a single conflict. Something like a mediator-cum-mentor-cum-arbitrator. A place where they are required to go and discuss in every instance they have a disagreement (under observance of 0RR), under the eyes of a mediator. And I think we might also need something that's rather uncommon in Wiki dispute resolution otherwise: a content tie-breaking mechanism, in case they simply can't agree. We need the mediator to have the power to actually impose an outcome to the debate, i.e. to tell either or both of them to stop and leave an issue alone.

As AzaToth said, both users were placed under a communitiy-imposed 1RR parole on certain articles in December, on my initiative, but this has proved insufficient because they just keep shifting the conflict on to new articles. Under those terms they've been subjected to a sequence of progressively lengthened blocks, especially recently by Dmcdevit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator comments edit

I'd like to hear from the disputants themselves. Are they interested in CEM and do they understand what this does? Durova^Charge! 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why AzaToth considered this a good fit for community enforceable mediation. The block histories here looked worrisome, but you both (E104421 and Tajik) come across as articulate and calm. I'm impressed. And I'm willing to mediate.

Before we embark on this I hope you both accept a few caveats. CEM is an experimental program. As you know an arbitration request got filed concurrently with this mediation request. Pretty much the same thing happened with the prototype case and the Committee more or less deferred to give mediation a chance. ArbCom supercedes this program, so the committee may take this out of our hands.

The potential advantages of coming here are that you may be able to reach a solution without the time and hassle of arbitration. You'd have the satisfaction of selecting remedies for yourselves. If you both remain as diligent and serious as you appear to be right now I'll do all that I can to help you find that solution. I've been active in Wikipedia dispute resolutions for over a year. You sound like the sort of people I had in mind when I proposed this program.

As an experimental program and a very early case, the community would probably scrutinize this closely. The specialized topic of your disagreement might reduce some of that interest (thank goodness you aren't debating Anna Nicole Smith). Seven trainees have volunteered and I'd discuss the case with them confidentially via e-mail. Now and then some Wikipedian might hop in and post at the wrong page - probably meaning to help - but a little out of process just because the precedents aren't well established yet. I'll ask you in advance to be patient about that and patient with any mistakes I might make.

Specifically to Tajik, are you asking to delay opening mediation until after May 12? Please confirm. I can be flexible. I hope ArbCom can also. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I will be off for 4 weeks. I'll be back in the first week of May. You can start the mediation if you want (honestly, I have no idea how this program works), but I won't be able to post until May. Tājik 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the proposal language cases are supposed to close if someone goes inactive for 30 days. There's no limit on how long a request can stay open, so as a procedural matter I'll keep this at request stage until the first week of May. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by E104421 edit

I would like to thank AzaToth, Fut.Per., and Durova for all their efforts. I want to state at first that i shall work with every Wikipedian who joins this project.

The story started with my comment on the White Huns/Hephthalite article on 3 November 2006 [4]. At the very beginning, everything was going alright. We were discussing the issue peacefully until the dispute between User:Karcha and User:Tajik from other articles were carried into the White Huns. Then, the conflicts spread to other articles and a large scale edit/revert war started. At the end, all the articles were protected, User:Karcha was blocked indefinitely. On the other hand, E104421 and Tajik were imposed to the revert parole on the articles of controversy on 17 December 2006.

The Eurasian nomads - Nomads related topics are indeed controversial. For this reason, it would be impossible to choose one side's view as a consensus version. We tried to discuss the issues many times, but there is nobody else joining the discussion to help us to evaluate/compare our versions.

An Oxford academic User:Sikandarji helped at the very beginning in a very objective and constructive way, but his version (i still consider his version as the most neutral and informative one) is reverted by other users and ignored. This was not my fault. I supported his version [5] but it's impossible for me to stop all the debate alone. I should confess that i could not communicate with all the parties to reach a consensus. I could propose a solution which would equally mention all the possible hypotheses on these articles.

After the 1RR revert parole, i started editing the Xionites article on 24 November 2006[6]. Tajik joined editing on 5 December 2006[7]. This time, i tried to merge the different edits several times [8][9][10]. The edit summary and the discussion page simply reveals that E104421 and Tajik are the only contributors of this article since December 5. Although we could not built a consensus, the dispute in this article is now just a minor one related with the references and naming/terminology (Red Huns). Dmcdevit blocked us for 1 month even though we did not violate the revert parole and the 3RR rule. He could add the Xionites article into the revert parole list instead of an excessive block or comment on the talk/discussion page.

After the 1 month block, i added an unblock template and started waiting. Admin AzaToth unblocked me and then Tajik with all his good faith. After returning editing, i sent the following e-mail to Dmcdevit on 29 Mar 2007: Hi, I requested my block to be shortened by placing an unblock template (actually hoping you to review the case) but i was unblocked by the decision of another admin. Now, i started editing but keeping myself away from the ones i edited together with Tajik. I have one question, if i edit these articles, how can i avoid conflicts? cause this guy does not read the references i provided. Should i try mediation? or just making quotations from the sources would suffice? Regards, E104421. However, he never replied but instead blocked us indefinitely for a very minor change on the Turco-Mongol article which was related with the usage of the word claim [11] which is in the list of words to avoid.

I communicated with Tajik via e-mail after the indefinite block for the first time in my life, he positively stated that Dmcdevit's block is unfair and our last edits on the Turco-Mongol was not a edit war at all. I'm totally agree with him. On the other hand, Admin AzaToth tried to help to solve the issue objectively with good faith. He opened a request for mediation which we signed together with Tajik. For this reason, i consider Dmcdevit's arbitration proposal an earlier one.

To sum up, I want to co-operate with anybody who may help to solve the issues of conflict/controversy and the communication problem with Tajik in any case. Probably we'll need an expert for the articles to built a consensus or we may try merging different versions. Anyways, i shall try to do my best.

E104421 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tajik edit

So far, E104421 has already explained everything. I do not know what to add. As I understand it, this "Community enforceable mediation" is not about the factual oppinions and views on the respective articles, but only about the methodes how to write those articles. Thus, I won't elaborate further my point of view in regard of the articles. The problem is that an admin blocked both of us indef. because of a minor edit. There are no personal problems between me and E104421, but only certain factual disagreements, and I am sure that he thinks the same.

In many articles, we are the ONLY contributers, and despite the edit-wars, we have improved those articles. Just take a look at Turko-Persian Tradition which was written by E104421 (in comparison to Turco-Persian, still a stub!). I have helped to turn 3 articles into FA (including Iranian peoples, Wikipedia's FA # 1000!). I was the one who further improved the quality of Afghanistan, and who wrote the article Qizilbash - still the best online source available! Together with User:Sikandarji - an Oxford academic - I wrote the article Babur, again the best online source available!

Instead of blocking us, the admin should have tried to help, maybe by just protecting the page. E104421 and I had many clashes, but in the end, all of the controversial articles were improved.

I do not reject that sometimes both of us exeggerated. And I am really sorry for that. I cannot even promis you that this will never happen again. But I assure you that ALL of my edits and reverts are based on good faith, and that I ALWAYS try to support my edits with academic sources. Besides that, I do not have any problems admitting a mistake (see Talk:Baghatur for example).

I have no problems working with E104421 together to improve articles, or to work with any other member of the community to solve our problems.

BTW: I will be off until May 12th, so I won't be able to answer your questions immidiately. Thank you all.

Tājik 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 12 is here edit

Are we ready to begin? Durova^Charge! 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cheers! E104421 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, waiting for Tajik to reply. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Tajik. He has been using IP addresses to edit war at Safavid dynasty (and who knows where else) as well as operated the sockpuppet Tajik-Professor (talk · contribs), as proven by checkuser. I don't believe he ever intended to participate in this mediation in good faith. I left a message that he should consider himself indefinitely banned unless he agrees to participate in the arbitration case, in which case I will unblock him only to edit the case. Thatcher131 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll close the mediation request: we don't handle sockpuppeteers at this venue. I'll leave this post open a few days for reference. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) and Ttiotsw (talk · contribs) edit

John Wallace Rich, sign here:John Wallace Rich 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ttiotsw, Sign here: I HAVE NOT AGREED TO ANY MEDIATION AND HAVE NO CURRENT CONTENT DISPUTES WITH THIS OTHER PARTY.

Discussion edit

What is being discussed, and do the disputants understand this process? Navou 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the process but have no content disputes with this other party. The last time they reverted an edit that I made to an article was back in 23rd January 2007 on the Killed_in_action article. Other editors have since rewrote the article and I've cleaned the odd spot of vandalism on that so what it is today represents a broad consensus. As the other editor has been blocked for quite a few weeks obviously have never seen them around on any other articles. As an aside I generally adopt a 1RR policy for myself anyway and if what I say doesn't stick I use the talk pages. If that doesn't work then I give up (Republic of China verses Taiwan anyone ?). If this other user is complaining about the flow of the arguments or grammar on the talk pages, well, then again, I suspect we've all got better things to do. Ttiotsw 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance edit

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.