Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan

Who is involved?

 * User:TopGun
 * User:Mar4d
 * User:JCAla
 * User:Darkness Shines
 * User:AshLin

I, Whenaxis, am not involved. I am merely referring this discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard and mediating the case.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
The article is currently facing multiple issues and disputes over multiple points. Most involved users acknowledge each other's positions on the dispute. A couple section headings, the content, the lede and an image are the main concerns of the parties.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

 * Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * Talk:Indians in Afghanistan

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
See.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Resolve this issue through compromise and avoiding an impasse in situations where everyone cannot agree on a resolution.

Mediator notes
Hi all! I'm opening this case from DRN since Steven Zhang thought this would be an appropriate place to help resolve this dispute. Even though, I'm the filer of this case, I'm not involved in the dispute. First I would like you to sign in the section below to indicate that you have read and agree to the ground rules. Once we have an agreement on the ground rules, then we can progress to the mediation. I would like to progress by getting a short statement on the dispute from all of you, and then we can work through the issues involved one by one until we reach a consensus. If you have any questions about the process you can post on my user talk page. I look forward to having a productive and successful mediation with all of you.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement
Unfortunately, not all parties agree to mediation. So, mediation is not a viable option as per the mediation policy. The next step in resolving this dispute, I would suggest opening an RfC. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page and not here. Thanks,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs  22:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules

 * Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
 * Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
 * When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

 * Agree. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. AshLin (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. JCAla (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree to the ground rules that means you will not be able to participate in this mediation, and the mediation will continue in due course.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs  22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Agenda

 * [1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.
 * [10%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation. Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.
 * [15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, section heading on intelligence. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [25%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, section heading on terror attacks/attacks. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [35%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, content of attacks. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [45%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, the lede about attacks and intelligence. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [55%] Initiate discussion on the fifth issue, the infobox image. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [65%] Initiate discussion on the sixth issue, military presence. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
 * [75%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.
 * [80%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.
 * [85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future
 * [95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
 * [100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

 Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TopGun
The article is currently facing multiple issues and disputes over multiple points. Most involved users acknowledge each other's positions on the dispute but the discussion is still stuck. We have all made a combined list for the issues in the article.
 * 1) Section heading: "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents"? Heading neutrality is disputed, my claim is that "alleged" should not be mentioned in the heading (like "confirmed" can not be mentioned); ie. a simple impartial title like "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents" or "Intelligence activities" would be sufficient as attribution is present in text. Opposing user claims that attribution should be added in the heading.
 * 2) Section heading: "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"? Another heading dispute, my claim rests on WP:NPOV heading as the attacks themselves are disputed, the opposing user claims on the attacks being called as terrorist attacks.
 * 3) Content: Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan? This is keeping the content about terrorist attacks on Indians in Afghanistan, I have asked for a single line or two line mention, opposing users want to add a full elaborate section. Although the attacks did take place but the dispute here is about the article going WP:COATRACK as the attacks are then being blamed on Pakistan's Inter-services Intelligence (ISI) and then the alleged relations between ISI and the given terrorist organizations are being covered.
 * 4) Lede: Content from "Attacks on Indians" is covered in lede while its being in the article in first place is disputed. Even if there is a bare mention in the article, this is disputed to be included in lede.
 * 5) Lede: A claimed purpose of Indians' presence in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is a matter of contention among the nations is not covered in the lede which I think should get a small mention (along with India's denial) in the lede.
 * 6) Image: The infobox depicts something which would be better off in the India-Afghanistan foreign relations article as suggested by me and another user, the opposing user claims its relevance.
 * 7) Content: "India has no military presence in Afghanistan" is being stated as a fact (in the Indian Aid section), this is a major point of contention as there is a complete section on this (where it should have been stated with attribution). The opposing users claim this to be a real life fact.

JCAla acknowledges opposing positions on the content dispute, and so do I. AshLin and Darkness Shines are in complete disagreement with any suggestion I've made (removed even dispute/discuss tags from the article). Mar4d being the creator (recovered/rewrote it from a copy vio version) is lightly involved. Darkness Shines has previously tagged the article for Afd (through which it survived) claiming it to be a WP:COATRACK article, following an edit war, article protection etc, this is now disputed as a WP:COATRACK on opposite direction. lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you dispute the reliability of sources provided by me any where you should take that to RSN. I provided sources from main stream media. The disagreement on the other article and the AfD are not relevant to this matter and I'll better not comment on them other than saying I disagree with AshLin's own conclusions. The removal of tag was simply lame... in the complicated dispute, there was no place to start a discussion about the discussion that you started by reverting the dispute tag (obviously it is disputed - removing that tag proves that you do not even acknowledge a dispute). I don't think you can simply state that India has no military presence in Afghanistan as a fact without attribution because the claim itself is contentious. The allegations by Pakistan have enough weight (given the India Pakistan relations and their importance in the region) for this to be a disputed matter. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to AshLin:

Statement by AshLin

 * In this article the majority of my edits have been to develop two sections neglected by other editors viz "History" & "Indian Aid in Afghanistan". Each of my edits are backed by reliable references in NPOV language and paraphrased to avoid copyvio. I have few edits in the contested sections.
 * I have reverted a disputed-dubious tag by User:Top Gun as regards the statement "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". Reliable references have been given (one an independent observer in Australian media, the other an Indian journalist cautioning against sending Indian military forces to Afghanistan as it would undo the goodwill brought by soft power.) The opposing user has not given any credible grounds for the dispute except a single Pakistani minister's statement in an Indian newspaper. My view is that any military presence of India would not have escaped notice in such a high visibility country as Afghanistan. User:Top Gun is unable to provide reliable references for details of induction, force level, mandate, agreements between Indian & Afghan governments, incidents, casualties, bases etc (all normal basic issues connected with military presence in any country). In my view, a few embassy military personnel do not constitute a military presence.
 * My stance is that User:Top Gun need only prove me wrong with reliable sources from a neutral agency, instead of disputing the tag removal.
 * I do have many issues in this article with which I disagree with User:Top Gun but since there was already a complicated dispute going on, I consciously chose not to intervene in the sections titled "Attacks on Indians", and "Allied intelligence activity and support for insurgents". I have not reverted anything there at all hence Top Gun's statements that I disagree with whatever he does is incorrect.
 * My principle objection on this and other pages has been that User:Top Gun uses unreliable sources and draws inappropriate conclusions from them, at times stretching the imagination. My disagreements with Top Gun regarding sources can be seen in Talk:Right to exist and Articles_for_deletion/Pakistani_English. AshLin (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JCAla

 * 1. Section heading: "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents"?

The correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" should be "Alleged intelligence activity" as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban.
 * 2. Section heading: "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"?

The attacks carried out by the Taliban Haqqani network themselves are not disputed. Explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians they have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries.
 * 3. Content: Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan?

The "Attacks on Indians" section is very relevant. These attacks constitute one major topic with regards to the issue of "Indians in Afghanistan". You can see this when searching for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google. You can see it in articles about "Indians in Afghanistan". Time Magazine i. e. covered the issue extensively. It is not coatrack to mention who carried out the attacks, rather that is relevant information for the reader. We cannot follow a policy of "I don't like" with regards to whether we present an information or not. Further several editors have previously reached a consensus on that information being relevant.
 * 4. Lede: Content from "Attacks on Indians"

It presents a major issue with regards to "Indians in Afghanistan" and thus a summary needs to be present in the lede.
 * 5. Lede: On intelligence allegations

There can be an appropriate sentence addressing the issue.
 * 6. Image

The image is not out of scope of the article and there are no other images available on "Indians in Afghanistan". JCAla (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines

 * Comment Withdrawing