Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-25/Six-Day War

Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Who is involved?
Selected users implementing majority consensus solution to bring article into compliance with WP:NPOV.


 * User:JRHammond Myself
 * User:Frederico1234
 * User:Ling.Nut
 * User:Phersu
 * User:harlan
 * User:Shoplifter

Selected editors attempting to revert article against majority agreement, in violation of WP:NPOV.
 * User:Jiujitsuguy
 * User:Ericsmeer
 * User:79.180.118.91
 * User:109.67.121.95
 * User:71.169.16.69

What is the dispute?
There is not really a "dispute", just a problem where administrator enforcement of Wikipedia policy is needed.

The principle problem is with regard to the third paragraph in the lede. Problem originally was that the first sentence stated as fact that Israel's attack on Egypt was "preemptive". This problem has been discussed at length on the Talk page, resulting in most editors agreeing on the reasonable solution that to comply with WP:NPOV, the article should present both views (preemptive vs. not preemptive) without endorsing either.

All of us who've agreed on this simple and reasonable solution are willing to consider alternative wording, so long as it complies with WP:NPOV. Yet, a number of editors who revert the article back into non-compliance haven't bothered to engage in the discussion, to express their objections, or otherwise seek to be reasonable, contrary to Wikipedia policy to do so in instances of such disputes.

This is the second time I've submitted for mediation. The first time, the problem was not addressed. I myself was wrongly blocked from editing for twice reverting such reversions, which, needless to say, was quite the opposite of helpful (blocked for violation of 3RR, despite the fact that I only reverted reversions twice, and without regard for Wikipedia policy on 3RR that states that edits that IMPROVE the article (e.g. by bringing it into NPOV compliance in accordance with majority decision of editors) will be given leeway to make such edits.

This is simple. Those of us who are simply trying to enforce the majority consensus in order to have the article comply with WP:NPOV should not be so punished for implementing the agreed-upon solution. Those attempting to revert the article back the way it was, in defiance of the majority consensus among the editors, and in violation of WP:NPOV, should, on the other hand, be stopped with punitive measures if necessary.

It clear that it's necessary for me to resubmit this (as requested by an admin), because the attempts to revert the article continue unabated, as you can see for yourself on the history page. See the Talk page for the lengthy discussion of the issue and for majority consensus solution to the problem. The constant edit warring on the part of the reverters is wearying.

For majority consensus solution of participating editors, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Six-Day_War#Do_we_need_to_qualify_the_statement_.22Israel_launched_a_pre-emptive_attack.22_in_order_to_conform_to_NPOV.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Six-Day_War#Lede_3rd_Paragraph_Dispute

What would you like to change about this?
Enforce Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV by blocking editors who revert the article in violation of that policy, and in defiance of the agreed solution of a majority of editors. If people object to the wording, they should present their objections and arguments on the Talk page for consideration, as per Wikipeida guidelines.

How do you think we can help?
You can block editors who attempt to revert the article in violation of WP:NPOV and the agreed solution of most editors, or otherwise do whatever necessary to enforce Wikipedia policy to help us stop the edit warring behavior of certain individuals.


 * That isn't what we are here for, that's what admins do. We try to mediate disputes between parties.  Those of us like myself with admin will sometimes use our admin powers as part of the mediation process but usually we try to avoid it so we can maintain neutrality.  --Wgfinley (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
As stated previously I would be up for working on this but I want to see the other parties involved. PLEASE don't start the argument here, quickly outline your issues before we do anything else there will be room and time for discussion. If other editors in the article are interested I'm willing to work on this with you. --Wgfinley (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the problem. The people who keep reverting the article refuse to engage the other editors on the talk page. Despite repeated requests to present their objections to the wording and state their case for revision on the talk page, none of them will. They just keep reverting and reverting and reverting and reverting. It's really a nuisance. I can't speak for the others, but I think it's fair to say they'd all be interested in getting this issue sorted out. JRHammond (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have people actively reverting the article and not using the talk page then this is administrative those people need to be blocked and/or the article protected until it can be worked out. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this issue still need mediation?Bobzchemist (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in it as an administrative capacity and can no longer mediate it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
In my Admin capacity I posted a warning to all parties about the constant warring on the article. As it's Isreal-Palestine it's subject to general sanctions so hopefully cooler heads will prevail and things will calm down. It does seem to me this dispute has a lot of editors with divergent viewpoints who want to work things out and then a few who just want to edit war (usually IP users it seems). --Wgfinley (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the protocol on pages like this, whether I'm supposed to reply in this field or not, so if not please let me know. Thanks for stepping in. You have correctly perceived the situation. I'm confident that with your assistance a reasonable solution may be found. JRHammond (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)