Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Raashid Alvi

Raashid Alvi

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. KDS4444 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Hamdirfan987 (talk · contribs)
3. Arjayay (talk · contribs)
4. Iffatalvi (talk · contribs)
5. Shakeeluddin (talk · contribs)
6. Abrahamkhan123 (talk · contribs)
7. Nazhatafroz (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Raashid Alvi

1. Raashid Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Raashid Alvi

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Several editors appear to have a conflict of interest. Article is inherently promotional but peacock tags are removed without discussion or being addressed, while images that are removed get replaced within hours. Removal of Hindi script in lead per WP policy is also repeatedly replaced, and requests for discussion go ignored; corresponding edit summaries get left blank, warnings regarding vandalism and nuisance edits get no acknowledgement. (Given their short edit history and single-purpose nature, some of the accounts mentioned seem likely to be sockpuppets.)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1

I think a Checkuser would be useful - editors do not normally delete image license tags as their second, or fourth edit; or request page protection as their 5th edit

• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. KDS4444^Talk 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree. Arjayay (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Comment from Committee member: While some of the issues mentioned above are content matters, several of the others - conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, perhaps repeated violation of policy - are conduct matters which will not be addressed by the Mediation Committee and, if action is desired upon them, ought to be referred to the proper conduct forum. Moreover, as to the content points that are mentioned above, there has been little or no discussion of them between the parties and mediation prerequisite #4 says, "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice". If you wish to continue to pursue this request you are free to do so and the Committee chairman will either accept or reject the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...Which would be great if anyone could get the article "owners" to engage. Messages have been left on their personal talk pages, but almost never get acknowledged, and the edit summaries they do leave are sometimes deliberately misleading (this morning's revision by Abrahamkhan123 was summarized by the words "All problems are solved"... the first thing he did was replace the Indic script in the lead paragraph, which is one of the sticking points of this discussion as already mentioned). It is very difficult to produce evidence of an extensive give-and-take dialogue when only one of the parties is talking. Do you have other suggestions about what we may do at this point if this is not the right venue? KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Because a good part of my response is going to be my personal opinion and not in my capacity as a member of the Committee, I'm going to respond at your talk page, not here on the request page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read your response-- thank you. It seems that just having brought this topic up here and having a few more editors weigh in on the article itself has convinced the uncooperative editors (of whom not one has "agreed to mediation", above) that they do not, in fact, own the article and cannot control its content with misleading edit summaries: they have stopped their series of reverts. Unless this behavior resumes or something new comes to light, I don't see any remaining reason for this request to be ongoing in any format, here or elsewhere. Thank you, Transporterman, for taking the request seriously, even if the Committee was not the going to be the best venue for the issue to be pursued. To re-quote one of said edit summaries: "All problems are solved." KDS4444^Talk 11:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You know, it was while I was writing that very paragraph that one of them, Abrahamkhan123, did exactly what I said it looked like he was done doing. Looks like I may have to rescind that all-problems-are-solved thing. His timing was immaculate. KDS4444^Talk 11:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

All listed editors except the requesting editor and Arjayay have been indefinitely blocked and I do not believe the two remaining editors are in conflict with one another. This can probably be rejected as moot. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It can and should be. If there is some formal closing procedure for the incident, it should now be followed. Mediation is no longer necessary or relevant. My thanks for your assistance. KDS4444^Talk 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. Not enough disputants able to participate in mediation. For the mediation committee Sunray (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)