Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10 India

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	India
Status	closed
Request date	07:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Supreme Unmanifest, Fowler&fowler, MintCond
Mediator(s)	Sunray
Comment	Case opened 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Request details

Request mediation on India regarding possible Edit War

Who are the involved parties?

User:Supreme Unmanifest formerly User:Ketankhare I accept the offer of mediation by user:Sunray

User:Fowler&fowler I accept mediation by user:Sunray. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MintCond -- I agree to participate in the mediation requested by KetanKhare and think it will help the resolution process be more constructive (and not personal) MintCond (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

An edit war is on the way on whether India should be called the largest democracy. If so, is this something worth mentioning in the first few paragraphs. (Please sign)

From my perspective, there are two main issues:

1. Should the following sentence in the India page lead paragraph:
It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world."
which has been in place since October 2006 be replaced by the sentence:
"It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the largest democracy in the world (by virtue of the size of its electorate)
2. Does mention of democracy in either sentence, but especially in the latter—with its emphasis on the details—properly belong to the lead paragraph (which is about geography and population) or is it more appropriate in the third paragraph (government and economy), where it could take a more informative form, such as:
"With an electorate larger than any other nation's, India's parliamentary democracy, has remained largely stable since its inception in 1950."
or, in more compact form:

"With an electorate larger than any other nation's, India is a stable parliamentary democracy.

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

Help!!! I am new here. Ketankhare (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

Case opened. Participants requested to make opening statement on talk page. Groundrules suggested. Sunray (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus achieved on the article talk page. Closing case. Sunray (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Please note that in accordance with the mediation policy mediations are privileged. This means that anything participants say is not to be used as evidence in other dispute resolution processes. Sunray (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Question: The mediation request claims that this is about: "Request mediation on India regarding possible Edit War". implying the involved editors are taking part in the edit war. I just put this on the record that I have not edited the page India in the last 250 edits to the article. --Ragib (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any ambiguity in calling India the largest democracy; it's obvious that we're talking about population-wise, especially since the fact that it's the 7th largest in area is already listed! Nikkul (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. Ketankhare (talk · contribs), who is not exactly new (as he claims to be), seems to have appeared out of the blue, and requested mediation, without being a part of the discussion on the Talk:India page. Also, typically, the parties to mediation have to agree to the Request for Mediation. It seems that user:Ketankhare has volunteered the various parties without seeking their permission. Lastly, I am troubled that some of the participants in the discussion MintCond (talk · contribs) and Rest day (talk · contribs) are not only new accounts, but also seemingly single purpose accounts. (Other than some quick perfunctory edits involving wikilinking common names like Calcutta, all made in one sitting over 10 minutes, all edits pertain to this dispute.) In addition, it seems that IP 24.130.60.26 is the same as user:MintCond.Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (updated: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think you might ask for a checkuser :), if you consider the editing patterns of those users similar to some other existing users. --Ragib (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look into it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not welcome here I will gladly attempt contributions elsewhere. I consider myself new because I am still not comfortable here. OH, BTW according to wikipedia policy for informal mediation using the mediation cabal does not require prior consensus as far as I am aware. IT also seems that the current dispute is taking a personal term. Why afterall would anyone be unhappy about me appearing "out of the blue" if it were a dispute regarding improvement in an article. This is not a personal dispute between any particular set parties. So I suppose I have evry right to appear out of blue, green, or whateverKetankhare (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I would be willing to mediate this: a) if there is something to mediated, and b) if the parties agree. Ketankhare has initiated this saying that there is an edit war over the use of the term "largest democracy," pertaining to India. OK, that could meet the first condition. As to the second, if two, or more participants agree, please so indicate beside your name above, and sign with four tildes ~~~~, thus. Also please indicate if there are additional issues to be considered. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be I should have requested for comments before moving on with this process? Ketankhare (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that an RfC would be an effective way to address the problem, by all means, go for it. Let's see what the others would prefer to do. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, why is User:Supreme Unmanifest adding comments as Ketankhare (talk · contribs)?? --Ragib (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed my username 10 minutes ago. I was a bit concerned about privacy. I was just about to alert this page. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clear the air -- Fowler&fowler above repeats above, in spite of me having discussed this on the India talk page, that I added 2 comments to the talk page when I was not signed in, and my IP appears instead of my name. Anyone reading the contents will figure that there is nothing inappropriate, and I was genuinely not logged in. As I have already said on the Talk page, in my comment (that appears under the IP 24.130.60.26, which is my IP) there is no confusion that the commenter is me since I CLEARLY refer to the MintCond list addition to the page as "MY comment". Also, Fowler&fowler's insinuations notwithstanding, I see nothing wrong in being drawn to Wikipedia as an editor in order to correct what I see as inaccuracies and bias in the India article. F&f's always uses the fact that he has more edits as a crutch in arguments, but clearly resolution should be based on strength of positions and and arguments. It's sad to see the way new users are treated, I've been the butt of personal attacks from F&f but I'm not going to be intimidated. MintCond (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what he does. If you disagree with him he tries to belittle you into going away. It's quite sad, actually. Beam 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned that Fowler is a known India baiter and his contributions so far have been of questionable nature and his lack of scholarship is quite obvious from his various edits. I recommend that an RfC be filed against him first. 121.243.204.78 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post about DemolitionMan Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made both my initial comment and the update above well before MintCond posted her/his clarification on the Talk:India page at 16:23, 10 June 2008. As for my post above, I was a little concerned at the time, having seen my share of mischief on Wikipedia. I am aware of WP:AGF, of course, but given the extra commitment of time required in an RfM or RfC, and my own busy schedule ahead, I was exercising caution. In retrospect, I misjudged user:Ketankhare/User:Supreme Unmanifest's motivations; I have since apologized to her/him and made up. As for the "single purpose accounts," I do, in general, remain suspicious of them for the same reason that Wikipedia does; I feel they are so wedded to the "purpose" that it is difficult to have a real dialog with them. However, I grant that since user:MintCond is a new user, the lack of diversity in his contributions, might not be an indication of "single purpose." So, MintCond, please accept my apologies.

I would prefer mediation by user:Sunray (to an RfC). I've done a few RfC's on the India page. They typically go nowhere and, even when they do, they are soon forgotten. I will be away from tomorrow until Monday, so I will try to cobble together a statement here before I leave. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to use of my name in this discussion. F&F seems to insinuate that I had some mal-intentions in doing the edits. Checking the history would have satisfied him that all I did was add a suggestion, which others could have accepted or rejected. It is true that the only edit I did was on this article, but that does not in anyway make what I said insignificant or wrong. I know all this is past, but what I felt was great about wikipedia was that any user could participate in the discussion. Sadly it seems that you need to have certain number of edits to your credit before you can make use of wikipedia (atleast some think so.) Rest day (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is RfC more appropriate?

Please Support or Oppose a move to get some more comments from editors before moving on with the mediation

Support. Some comments would speed up the mediation. Ketankhare (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's bag the RfC idea and go straight for the mediation, if that is acceptable to user:Sunray. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the statements here and the discussion on the talk page, I do tend to think that mediation would be appropriate, if the participants all agree. Sunray (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's go ahead with the mediation. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this suggestion. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, my intent will be to assist in creating an environment for us to all benefit from this experience. However, I expect the heavy lifting to come from each of you. Shall we begin on the talk page? I will move F & F's format there. We can use this page for administrative stuff. Sunray (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]