Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-03/Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Where is the dispute?
The article Communist Party of India (Marxist).

The diff shows the content in dispute.

Who is involved?

 * Nithinj
 * Soman, and
 * Deshabhakta

What is the dispute?
I have tried discussing it on talk page of the article and talk page of concerned fellow editors. I have been requesting the fellow editors to participate in the discussion on the talk page but Nithinj responds in edit summary only and with opinions. All my requests to provide Wiki policy references which my edits violate have not been responded at all. I took the claims on reliability issues to RSN and it was clarified that the sources used are completely reliable. I am getting replies like "these are malicious lies", "slanders", "motivated lies", "Deplorable to note that vested interests are planting slanderous lies " etc. There is no reason mention to consider these as "lies". One of the edit summary says "This should be resisted."! This shows clear signs of resisting content not favoring a particular editor's POV. These edits were subject to IP vandalism also. I requested page semi protection but was declined saying it is a candidate for dispute resolution.

What would you like to change about this?
My request is to make the fellow editors participate in the discussion on talk page positively and let me know what policy of Wikipedia project my edits violate. I request my edits not to be reverted as their reliability has already been agreed upon on RSN. If any word or phrase or sentence is quoted out of context of the listed (reliable) sources, I am open to revise my edits.

How do you think we can help?
I want to understand if my edits which are being reverted, despite repeated requests to participation in discussion, violate any policy of Wikipedia. I am looking at the listed users participate in discussion and let me know which wikipedia rules and regulation necessitate my edits to be removed from the article. If that is not so, I would like my edits to be retained on the article.

Mediator notes
I have talked to all of the users in question and regard Deshabhakta as being in the right here. I have visited his sources and seen who owns the IP that runs the site. All seems to be in order. I would suggest to an administrator that the users in question be possibly blocked from editing articles/ account creation. Any questions should be put on my talk page. Any changes should be discussed on the talk page Let me know --  Mr. R00t     Leave me a Message   02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I think as far as mediation is concerned, 1234r00t's comment above is hardly helpfull. Nor is it correct that 1234r00t has 'talked to all editors', so far I (as one of 3 persons being named in this case) has had zero interaction with 1234r00t about this article.

Let's be clear about one thing; Deshabhakta's political line is clear from his pattern of editing. His sole purpose in editing the CPI(M) is to present the organization is the most negative light as possible. He googles for news articles to back his case, and consciously selects newspieces that forwards his case. There is no sign of good faith at all that he has attempted to present a balanced view of the situation, he has not included any mentions of the frequent violent attacks against CPI(M), murders of its cadres by various forces (particularily in West Bengal and Tripura), for example. In his edit history are also various edits on for example RSS, which are in the complete opposite direction.

From my own understanding, it seems that Deshabhakta, in one way or the other, is a RSS sympathizer. 1234r0ot's suggestion is basically to give a far-right pov-pusher a free hand to possess the article as his own. That would be a sad choice indeed.

On the other hand, we have a few editors with limited Wikipedia experience, not fully familiar with policy and style who have become engaged in opposing Deshabhakta's defamation attempt in this article. Some edits and comments might have not been 100% helpfull. I would suggest that other, more experienced and hithero uninvolved editors communicate with them to provide some guidance on how Wikipedia works and how to resolve a dispute like this.

Furthermore, as I see it the best way forward here would be to involve other, more experienced editors who are 1) neither a RSS nor CPI(M) partisan and 2) familiar with Indian (and West Bengal in particular) politics, into the discussion about the article. The goal ought to be the overall improvement of the article contents, rather than finding a stalemate in the pov conflict. --Soman (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An all-praise article may not be a balanced article. Critical observations sourced from reliable entities should be used to balance the article; thats what I have done with these edits. If one tries to make an article balanced which is a requirement of Wiki, it should be considered a good faith edit. There are judicial court verdicts in what I have quoted as sources. There are convictions on murder charges. That too my edits are also not from one source; so many sources point towards one thing that CPIM uses violence as part of its political movement. This is even accepted by the fellow editors involved in this dispute (please see talk page of the article). With almost all editors having accepted there should be no dispute itself in having references to use of violence by CPIM! Untenable arguments with no backing of Wiki policies and pure personal feelings(?) are being used to revert my edits. Certainly not good for Wiki!

Further, instead of making these generic observations on politics and a particular user's self discovered 'pattern of editing' I request the fellow editors to list out the material in question and what wiki policies are violated by it. In the presence of moderator, we will discuss these objections and arrive at a resolution. Hoping general commentaries will be limited or disappear all together. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is little point in opening a fork of the article talk page debate. The actual contents we should discuss there, and here rather discuss the process as such. But in short: 1) are there any passages in the existing article you have problems with? Where is the "praise"?, 2) a balanced article is not =(X amount of positive content + X amount of negative content). I'm not opposed to cover issues such as political violence in northern Kerala or in rural West Bengal, but I remain vehemently opposed to having a "controversies" section in the article. That section is, evidently, a honey pot for pov-pushing. Rather, deal with all major issues relating the party in the history or in a "current situation" section. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have spoken to Soman and warned him about his reverts. I am also in the middle of editing his talk page to try to discuss what is happening. I also would suggest to Soman to stop being a kiss-up.  Mr. R00t     Leave me a Message   22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to join as a mediator in this discussion by User:1234r00t. It looks like the issues are currently being discussed at Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist), while this discussion has gone stale-ish. Can I get a quick update on the situation (or is this mediation still necessary)? Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The current situation is this. (And please correct me if I am incorrect Deshabhakta). Soman and Deshabhakta are arguing whether or not to include the fact that CPI(M) uses violence as a means of control. Soman is also attacking Deshabhakta with claims that he is an 'RSS supporter'.   Mr. R00t     Leave me a Message   22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The mediation is still necessary. Adding to what Mr R00t has already said, my edits are being removed based on invalid objections. Please refer to talk page of the article. I have already replied to NPOV and SYNTH related questions. But current argument is that Wiki is a participatory forum and everyone must agree at all times that all edits are open to editing by all other editors (at will). This should be unacceptable as otherwise anybody will be able to put any content on a wiki article. Also, if this argument were to hold good, the other party in dispute can also use the same argument to put his edits on the article leading to edit warring. I have been requesting the editors objecting to my edits to have a Wiki policy and guidelines based discussion. Rather, most of the times, in reply, generic commentaries and personal attacks are being recieved.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this mediation still live? Where is it taking place? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)