Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
- E104421 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Tajik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- AzaToth (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
- Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) (Intitiator)
[edit] Statement by Dmcdevit
In the last few months these two editors have engaged in persistant, wide-scale edit warring with each other and others. They each have extensive block logs: E104421 and Tajik. However, despite their blocks and warnings, the behavior continues unabated. In December, after a suggestion on ANI by Future Perfect at Sunrise, both were put on a community-enforced revert parole: [1] (User talk:E104421#Revert parole, User talk:Tajik#Revert parole). However, the result was that each violated the parole and was blocked, and, more often, that they both began to game the revert parole, by edit warring on other articles not specified, and by repeatedly making their one ("allowed") revert per day, and so they were blocked again. They show no willingness to discuss politely their disagreements, or to seek dispute resolution when encouraged. After their most recent month-long block, another administrator, AzaToth decided to unblock both editors unilaterally [2], without notifying the blocking administrator or attempting any discussion whatsoever before reversing my block. Predictably, they each returned to reverting each other without discussion [3] [4], and so I reblocked them both indefinitely. AzaToth yet again unblocked both of them [5] (making four blocks of mine he reversed in as many days, without ever contacting me, a noticeboard, or anywhere else) despite the fact that another administrator had already declined to unblock [6]. AzaToth has stated that they must submit to an "community-enforced" mediation, though, besides the fact that involuntary mediation makes no sense, both were subjected to a community-enforced revert parole for several months, and the result was simply gaming and violations, not a resolution. It is clear to me that the problem will not be solved unless ArbCom reinstates the indefinite blocks on Tajik and E104421 would not be amiss looking into the disrespectful use of admin tools by AzaToth. Dmcdevit·t 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Fut.Perf.
I was involved in some previous blocks, in installing the 1RR parole of December, and in AzaToth's efforts yesterday of finding an arrangement along the lines of Durova's "community-enforceable mediation". My view of the situation: Dmcdevit's escalation of blocks was justifiable though somewhat harsher than necessary – the last, indef block coming as it did after only a single revert made since the previous unblock, in the case of E104421, and at a moment where the two were actually trying to discuss in a relatively relaxed atmosphere. AzaToth's failure to consult over the unblocking was a forgivable mistake by a new admin. His intentions in unblocking were laudable. In my preceding unblock-decline ([7]) I had already hinted at a similar possibility.
If we can help these two contributors overcoming their communication problem, it would be worth a try. They are both knowledgable and interested in an "exotic" area of learning that is not covered by many other editors (medieval central Asian ethnicities and polities). Both have a potential of making valuable contributions, in this area and also elsewhere. Both are well-intentioned, though stubborn and motivated in parts by ethnic prejudice (and especially in the case of Tajik there's an element of inflexibility and self-righteousness that's often annoying.)
I'm not quite convinced yet that the exact form of Durova's mediation model is suitable here; it's an intended experiment inspired by her recent positive experience with Piotrus and Ghirla; in the present case I believe we need a somewhat more narrowly guided approach and a more active superveillance. If Arbcom decides to consider solutions along these lines, my preference would be for a combination of mediation and mentorship (plus revert parole of course), with a mentor having the authority to impose 0RR and mediation-like processes on new dispute situations as they come up. If a more pessimistic view is to be taken, topic bans might still be more appropriate than all-out indef bans.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by AzaToth
I'm sorry I didn't notify Dmcdevit and the noticeboard, as I should have done, I'm rather new in this kind of matter. I had the feeling as the dispute only where between Tajik and E104421, and if they could agree to a 0RR parole against each other, that would solve the problem. I belive an indefinite block on these two wouldn't be the most optimal solution, as they are good contributors, they just can't agree with each other. →AzaToth 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by E104421
I'm very sorry for the trouble we have brought about. I'd like to summarize how things got so complicated upto day.
The story started with my comment on the White Huns/Hephthalite article on 3 November 2006 [8]. 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 [9] 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[10]. Tajik joined editing on 5 December 2006[11]. This time, i tried to merge the different edits several times [12][13][14]. 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 [15] 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.
E104421 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Tajik
E104421 has already explained everything. I have nothing else to add. Like him, I am very sorry for the trouble we have brought about. Tājik 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- Accept. Kirill Lokshin 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Charles Matthews 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept, but put on hold to see if the community can resolve the situation. (I do not want to reject and have the case slip through the cracks.) FloNight 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept, per Flonight. Paul August ☎ 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. - SimonP 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
