Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing
Article Ethnic Cleansing
Status Closed
Requestor CJGB
Parties CJGB, Khoikhoi
Mediator(s) Pending
Comment Closing while editor on wikibreak


Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: CJGB (Chris) 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
...In Ethnic Cleansing, with some spillover into Bosniak
Who's involved?
... Me User:CJGB and User:Khoikhoi
What's going on?
... Khoikhoi has been insisting on a unilateral edit to the article. After making a brief defence of his position on 27 February, he has ignored all my attempts to discuss the issue or work out a compromise, and silently reverts my attempts to restore the original position pending a proper discussion. He also reverted a good-faith edit of mine in the Bosniak article without explanation.
The substance of the dispute is over the terms "Bosniak" and "Bosnian Muslim". The consensus version of the article used the formula "Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)" on first mention and "Bosniak" thereafter. Khoikhoi insists that "Bosnian Muslim" is an offensive term that cannot be used. In my view he misunderstands the actual usage. In fact the phraseology "Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)" is frequently use by Bosniak groups and human-rights groups concerned with Bosniak issues. Some reference to "Bosnian Muslim" is desirable because it remains the most commonly used term outside Bosniak circles. In additional some groups may see exclusive use of "Bosniak" as indicating a pro-Bosniak bias. (The modern use of "Bosniak" dates to about 1993 and is therefore touchy in some circle. It is worth noting that courts at the international level have generally avoided the term "Bosniak" in order to allay the appearance of bias. Let me stress that I personally use the term "Bosniak", but oppose enforcing exclusive use of it.)
What would you like to change about that?
First, Khoikhoi is obvious violating several Wikipedia policies and should stop. Second, he should give up trying to enforce this particular edit in the Ethnic Cleansing article. If, as he claims, the term "Bosnian Muslim" is regarded as offensive in this context, we can rest assured that someone else will take up the cause sooner or later. If no-one does, it will be a strong indication that the term, as we are using it, is in fact inoffensive.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
... Just leave a comment on my page, which I check about once a day.

[edit] Mediator response

Well. On the content, Khoikhoi made a good point. Wikipedia's article is named Bosniaks, not Bosnian Muslims, so, a referent to Bosnian Muslims isn't needed. Now let's talk about the parties' behaviour.

  1. None of the parties have violated the three revert rule.
  2. Both the parties has used automatic revert tools in a content dispute. I think that somewhere it's advised not to use it, maybe it's even forbidden, but I didn't found the page :-(
  3. The parties has engaged in a revert war.
The first removal of the Bosnian Muslims term by Khoikhoi has been done following the BOLD policy.

But the reverts wasn't all right. When you haven't established consensus and somebody say "Well, I disagree with you", the issue should be discussed in the talk page. And until the consensus has been reached. The previous version (I mean what was there before the start of the edit/revert war) should be left until the discussion has ended.

So, Khoikhoi shouldn't reverted more than once.

What I've said is:

  • On the content thing, I think that Khoikhoi was right in removing the text but
  • On the behaviour side, both the parties, and expecially Khoikhoi, have engaged a fierce revert war.

But remember, this is an informal mediation process. I'm not a judge.

I've pointed out what I had to, if the parties agree, please say it.

Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


  • In the article Ethnic Cleansing, either for the simple redirect issue or for being an offensive term (as stated in the Bosniak article), the words Bosnian Muslims should be removed Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Just for information, User:Khoikhoi is continuing to edit-war in Bosniaks, having reverted two anonymous users who attempted to re-instate my original edit. (And, no, they are not sock-puppets.)CJGB (Chris) 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted the anonymous editor (there turns out to be only one, with a dynamic IP address), encouraging him to contribute to this mediation if he cares to. CJGB (Chris) 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the anon user. I've created an account for the purposes of this case. Here is some info I've posted elsewhere:

Here are some sources that use the term "Bosnian Muslim"

"Bosnian Muslim", it seems, is in no way offensive, and by far the most widespread term used in English. Former Anon 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CJGB's response from Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#Bosniaks:
Unquestionably. As far as I recall (someone can research this if they want) The Guardian is the only important news provider that uses "Bosniak". The major media are not bigoted organizations; if they feel an ethnic term is offensive, they stop using it.
Moreover, the user who originally added the phraseology Khoikhoi is objecting to identifies himself as a Bosniak living in France. CJGB (Chris) 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that the article is located at Bosniaks, not Bosnian Muslims, and if people want to see any alternate names, they can just click on the link. Why does it have to be mentioned there? Khoikhoi 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Khoikhoi. I'll make a brief reply tonight, when I have time. CJGB (Chris) 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there's a case for for making your change, but I don't happen to agree, as I've explained. The primary issue is really process: Why should your view prevail, and why are you using disruptive methods to try to make it prevail - editing warring, repeated reversions without discussion, repeat rejection of attempts to discuss? I mean, people get banned for stuff that (granted, probably on a larger scale that anything you've done.) I understand you see yourself as a top-ranking Wikipedia, who's constantly battling crackpots and trolls and other disruptive users. But, you know, though I'm not a particularly active editor, I have (I believe) a solid record of constructive edits in this article, and I don't appreciate being treated as if I were the 16th sockpuppet of some anti-Bosniak bigot. CJGB (Chris) 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How does this have anything to do with the discussion? Please don't try to personalize the issue. Khoikhoi 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your motivations, which are quite puzzling to me. I think it has a bearing on the case. If you don't agree, restrict your consideration the passage above that I've now bolded, which is obviously and directly relevant. The primary issue here is obviously your behaviour, not the substance of your proposed edit. CJGB (Chris) 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I requested this mediation, Khoikhoi has made over 1000 edits to WIkipedia. It's safe to say that if wanted to address the issue in other than the most cursory terms, he'd have done so by now. So, I'm content to hear what you, the mediator, has to say. Specifically, I'd like your opinion on three questions:
  • What is the correct Wikipedia etiquette in this cases like this? I assume that, unless a consensus emerges that K's edit is better, we stick with the old one, and the K's attempt to impose his preference by edit-warring is illegitimate.
  • Has Khoikhoi violated WP policy, and if so, how?
  • Have I violated WP policy, and if so, how?
I don't think it's your role to decide the merits of actual edit (based on what I know of the mediation process), but feel free to express your opinion on that too.
CJGB (Chris) 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get why it's necessary to use an offensive alternate name for the Bosniaks in the article, when it's already mentioned in the relevant page. Khoikhoi 07:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are points worth discussing. You should have been discussing them 2 weeks ago on the Ethnic Cleansing talk page. The question you should be asking here is, If I know I'm right, do I have to go through the process of discussion and consensus-building, or can I just impose my changes through edit-warring? And the answer is, Yes, you must go through the process and, no, you can't edit-war.
My question for Snowolf is this. You've supported Khoikhoi on the substantive issue but me on the process issue. Which rules - substance or process? More concretely: Would I be justified in reverting Khoikhoi's edit and rolling us back to the situation on February 27? I'd assume yes, but do you agree?
As for the substantive issue ("Bosniaks" versus "Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims)"), I think it's more complicated than either of you think. That's why it's worth discussing, in the context of the article. CJGB (Chris) 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're building an encyclopedia, so once we found what it the best, I don't think we should care about the past process, if we're talking about contents. If we belive one thinks is right, then we should do it. On the substancial issue: mediation doesn't rely on knowing specifically what the issue is. It rely on policies and sources. As wikipedia, I've seen that Bosnian Muslims's page redirect to Bosniaks, and on that page it's written that it's not really the best term to use it (I mean somebody can be offended). So, if there isn't a special reason why this page should use another term, then we should use the most common one, the one which has a wikipedia article. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Bosniac or Bosniak is nw the official term used for the group formerly known inaccurately as Bosnian Muslims. The official documents are now required to use this term and it is in the constitution.[1] Furthermore many Bosniaks are not religious and saw the term Muslims as a way to influence the west and public opinion. Serbian press representatives people often referred to us as simply Muslim (capital M to denote ethnic group, rather than religious). This capitalization of course cannot be heard so when you have a war over Bosnian territory between Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Muslims, it would tilt public opinion to use that term. That is why the term Bosnian Muslim can be seen as offensive.
Thanks for your responses, Snowolf and anonymous user. I'll try to make a longer reply tomorrow or the next dayCJGB (Chris) 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to get back to WP till next week some time; I hope you'll hold the case open till then.CJGB (Chris) 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status?

Is this case still active or can I close it? --McClerk 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on hold until CJGB comes back. I won't close it, it doesn't any harm to be inactive ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No edits since March - I'll close and we can reopen when he returns. Addhoc 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)