Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Comments: Geo recused from this one. Mediator needed? Cowman109Talk 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-19 Banu Nadir 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 2 Proposed Solution

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-19 Banu Nadir

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Publicola 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa which are currently fully protected, and Talk:Banu Nadir. There is an unrelated dispute regarding a false accusation of copyright violation on Qaynuqa's talk, but I think it would be best to keep the discussion on Nadir's talk, since it is the longer of the two articles including essentially all of the other.

Who's involved?

User:Pecher, User:Tickle me, User:Timothy Usher, and User:Briangotts representing one side of the dispute, and User:Saadsaleem, User:Itaqallah, and myself, User:Publicola, representing the other.

What's going on?

This article recently appeared in "Did You Know?" on the Main Page with a factoid that many considered inflammatory. Since then, many have been arguing over the article. Pecher, Tickle_me, and Timothy Usher have been reverting to a version of the article which relies mostly on Jewish sources for the disputed portions, to the exclusion of the Muslim viewpoint. Saadsaleem, Itaqallah, and I have been introducing academic Muslim sources and addressing what I believe are obvious bias problems, but our work is being continually reverted for all sorts of reasons which I believe have no merit. I have outlined a list of more than fourteen bias problems with Pecher et al's version, at Talk:Banu Nadir#Continued reintroduction of bias by reverts, and Pecher has only responded to a few of them, and only taking one seriously enough to correct in the article text.

As of yesterday, June 19, Banu Nadir was fully protected in the state that I believe has the substantial bias problems. Today, June 20, administrator User:Pschemp falsely claimed copyright violation Banu Qaynuqa, reverted over two edits back to the disputed version, and also fully protected it.

Please see Talk:Banu Qaynuqa. pschemp | talk 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have converted the points I raised to questions which I hope will be suitable for mediation at Talk:Banu Nadir#Mediation. The section the points were in was growing too large, with only one of them having been addressed. Publicola 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like someone neutral to ask the opposing editors to respond to each of the other bias problems I have raised, and work to resolve those problems in the article instead of continually reintroducing them by reverting.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I would prefer to have this out in the open, unless the mediator thinks working discreetly would be a great advantage, in which case I available by my email link. Publicola 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I am the mediator. Geo. 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of keeping things organized, where is the discussion for this case taking place? Cowman109^Talk 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think on Talk:Banu Nadir -- so far this page has only been used for administrative and informative notices about the mediation, and not actual mediation discussion. I am not opposed to discussing the issues on this page, except for the fact that readers would lose the considerable context available at Talk:Banu Nadir. I will leave it up to the mediator and do as he says.

Ah, thanks. I just wanted to know so people can check up on the status of the mediation. Cowman109^Talk 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator needed It appears that Geo.plrd has not responded to this case yet, so I am flagging this case as still in need of a mediator. Cowman109^Talk 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking I will take the case. The discussion will take place on Talk:Banu Nadir. However proposed solutions should be posted here. I am going to see why the page was protected. Will contact Pschemp. Geo. 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Recusing Geo. 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So, uh. Is this case still active? I'm not exactly sure what happened here. Cowman109^Talk 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what happened with this case, so I'm closing it. I would recommend a new mediation cabal case request be filed if there are still issues. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I've spoken with the admin in question: User:Pschemp on IRC, who has given me the following quote:

I don't feel this is a mediation case. The edit warring needed to stop, and when they've reached a compromise position, I'll happily unprotect the article so they can continue editing. Also, when Jayjig protected Banu nadir for exactly the same reason, making mediation unecessary.

As Pschemp has no interest in the subject in question and is already acting as an uninterested third party, please contact her only when this mediation has come to a conclusion (as determined by the mediator) so she may perform the administrative action of unprotecting the page. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I created Banu Nadir/mpov (m=multiple) and Banu Qaynuqa/mpov which anyone can edit while the main pages are protected. I have encoraged both sides in the debate to do so, and I see that at least one other editor already has. I want to take this opportunity to again encourage the non-Muslims to participate in mediation. Publicola 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

--SaadSaleem 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Solution

1. The page will stay protected until resolution is reached.

2. Each side will post a version on the talk page.

3. They will them combine the two versions into a final version

acceptable by both sides.

4. After completion of the above step, the Mediator will request Pschemp to remove protection.

Geo. 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Type AGREE or DISAGREE to indicate approval or disapproval. Geo. 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AGREE Publicola 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediators in the mediation cabal have no power to protect or unprotect pages. We are an informal process that does not have official powers. If page protection is what's needed, then see WP:RFP Cowman109^Talk 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. The version posted by Publicola et al. makes a joke of Wikipedia policies. Pecher ^Talk 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AGREE, sorry for late response ITAQALLAH 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --SaadSaleem 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)