User talk:Omer182

Welcome!

Hello, Omer182, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Baristarim 08:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety,

I want to clarify some issues regarding the development of the Hemshin Peoples article and my edit practices there. (Note that I have put a similar address to admin Khoikhoi on the talk page of the entry, since he/she has protected the it).

Before going into the details, let me first state that my recent reverts were in response to a series of unjustified wholesale reverts (taking the entry back to its version almost a year ago, with no dicsussions or justifications). Thus I find your warning rather unfourtunate, given that in my opinion my edit practices in the entry are completely wikipedia edit policies compliant. Your warning, in a way, punishes edit policies encouraged by wikipedia while rewarding those actually discouraged by it.

Here is a brief overview of the development phases of this entry in the last year and my relevant contributions (All of the below will be verified if one has a brief look at the talk page and its archive).

• Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007 (almost a year ago!). Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on the archieve for the talk page. My reason for proposing revision was my opinion that the entry did not stand NPOV as it was. After waiting for app. 20 days, with no response from the contributors, I put a reminder that I was waiting for a response on 2 September 2007. Eventually, with no confrontation and actually some vague agreement on my proposal, I put a dispute tag (9 October 2007). Then, I started the procedure for section by section editing which comprised of first posting the proposal for the edits regarding the relevant section and waiting for discussion for a reasonable amount of time. My first proposal was posted on 28 October 2007 in the discussion page. All my edits have been implemented following the procedure outlined above.

• I have edited three sections of the article (lead section, history section and groups sections) in this manner.

• After a brief period of blind revert attacks (which were also exposed to admin Alex Bakharev), detailed discussions started to take place between me and user Meowy on 10 June 2008. During these discussions, I have also tried to involve admin Alex Bakharevi hoping that we can have a disciplined and productive discussion with his presence. Even though he has dissappeared after a brief involment, a (more or less meaningful) discussion has started to take shape and it is an ongoing one to this day…Meowy’s temporal absence has temporarily halted the discussions, for the time being.

The current state of the discussion can be summarized as follows (Recall that my edits are confined to lead, history and groups sections):

1)Meowy has placed a number of fact tags and weasel word warnings in the history and groups sections. To satisfy his/her request, I have implemented various content and wording changes in these sections and posted a fully referenced text. I feel that Meowy is still not comforable with the text, never the less he/she has not raised any specific objections to the history and groups sections.

2) Our discussion with Meowy then focused on the lead section more recently (starting on 4 July 2008), whereby we provided detailed feedback about each others versions for it (See table comparisons on talk page)

3) I have then raised a proposal on the talk page which might meet both our approval (see my entry on talk page dated 10 July 2008, under the heading "new proposal for lead section"). User Meowy has not yet commented on the proposal, also indicating later on that he/she will not be able to do so for a while since he/she will be absent for a month (See Meowy's statements on talk page on 18 July and 4 August 2008).

• Starting on 3 August 2008, several users, one after the other, have started to engage in wholesale reverts, taking the entry back to its version prior to 9 October 2007, undermined several months of discussion, and editing . They removed therewith also fully referenced information. None of these users (except for VartanM), has been involved in the discussions mentioned above and they do not have any contributions to the entry (except their recent – repetaed- wholesale reverts ). They basically kept wholesale reverting the article with no specific reasons.

• I have invited them for discussion several times (see for example my entries on the talk page dated 3,4 and 7 August 2008). They completely avoided discussion.

• Since I could not get a single word relating to the content of the article from them, I was forced to undo their unjustified reverts.

Given this situation, I hope you agree with my statement at the beginning , namely that I am not the one who should get the warning. Consequently, I kindly request that you remove the warning (or take an action which amounts to that)and, if you believe some warning should be issued given the recent revert , warn those contributors who are in direct violation of the wikipedia edit policies instead. Omer182 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Understand I am not saying who is right or wrong here, but instead I was just informing you that edit warring of any kind could result in a block. Please try dispute resolution. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hemshin peoples

Hi, I see what you mean. However, please see m:The Wrong Version. I simply protected to the version that was up there, and the page can only be unprotected once the conflict is resolved. Looking at the talk page, it appears that this dispute has dragged on for quite awhile. Perhaps it is time for a request for formal mediation at this point. It is clear from the talk page that there is a dispute, but it would be nice if there were a consensus eventually. That's why I would recommend a formal request for mediation. Khoikhoi 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikkoi,

Thank you for your response. I understand your point that the version protected is not your choice, and that the way out is a consensus - possibly through mediation. I also know that page protects usually end up with one side complaining.

However, I still need to bring the following to your attention.

The practice or rule to protect the “current” version obviously has its merits ….as well as procedures to force edit warring parties to discussion and consensus, or submit to decision of others (arbitration).Implementing those rules needs possibly considering also other rules and policies of wikipedia and a judgement by the administrator may be required.

I call upon you to consider such judgement on this occasion for the following reasons:

1)You have not protected as editors were arguing and edit warring on content but as a group of users were taking turns, for a duration of a week, simply implementing wholesale reverts without argument.

2)The protection has resulted in interruption of a discussion which was taking place between myself and another user. That discussion was, as it should be, focused on a part of the gradually developed version, not on the version that you have protected.

3) The protected version is the version of a year ago: the concept of protecting the current version of an ongoing argument is jeopardised here.

4) This version of a year ago is inserted by users who have neither presented one single argument in favour of that version nor any objection against the properly developed real "current version". Other wikipedia rules are jeopardised here.

5) Those users are several in number but "one" in attitude in concerted action. Furthermore, 3 such reverts just before the protection have been implemented by users who appear for the first time in the context of this entry and just in the action of those reverts. One of them is the user who requested the protection. I guess this issue needs to be looked into as well...

If those issues are not considered and the protection rules are applied merely formalistically, they just serve the purpose of the users who possibly delibaretely violate wikipedia policies. A protection which amounts to a practical endorsement of such behaviour cannot be in line with wikipedia policies and definitely is not your purpose. This would only encourage the unapprovable approach of "avoid discussion/ wholesale revert blindly/force others to revert back/request protection and get it on the version you like".

Instead such users should be led to contibute in accordance with wikipedia rules.. Maybe you in your capacity as the administrator who got involved in the article have the means to secure that. Let me repeat…they have not responded to my frequent calls to participate in discussion.

I kindly ask for your opinion regarding the matter at hand.Omer182 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the users who were not engaging in the discussion. What I could do is contact them requesting them to do so. However, if you do chose to make a formal request for mediation (given that Meowy is apparently traveling according to his comment on the talk page), the mediator will add requests to their talk page as well. This would force them to give arguments for their reverts as opposed to leaving the article protected with no discussion.

I have taken all of your points into consideration, many of them are apparent from viewing the article and its talk page. However, before we accuse these users of purposely trying to mess-up the article, it is important to assume good faith. I am confident that if there is a formal mediation that this can be resolved. Keep in mind what the protection temple says, "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Another option is for you to leave comments on all of their talk pages. However, I think the best route is to go to WP:RFM and get help that way. Please try this first and let me know how it works out. Khoikhoi 06:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi

You had recommended that I request a formal mediation and had asked me to keep you posted; herebelow is an update:

I have applied for formal Mediation and have named all the 4 users who have created the revert war as involved parties. I have informed them on their talk pages and requested their consent to mediation. None of them has responded. Now my mediation request is rejected on grounds that involved parties have not consented.

I understand that the protection may be lifted if the threat of the revert war is over. Not easy to anticipate what those users may do. Hopefully they have calmed down. I guess I should attempt an unprotection and if succesfull bring the article back to where it was before the protection on an ancient version took place and hope to see a proper discussion and edit process take place.

The other option seems to be arbitration. I feel it is somewhat bizarre that I go into this last resort with those 4 users . May I refer you to my earlier explanations with regard to the particulars of the development leading to protection.

As you got involved in this article in your capacity as a administrator, I kindly ask for your guidance with regard to how I should proceed.

The wikipedia page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection includes:

"If you are requesting unprotection, it is usually a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here".

Actually I had already requested unprotection informally from you earlier but maybe I should repeat it herewith now. I would appreciate your soon response.Omer182 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hemshin peoples: adjustments required

Omer, Please note my request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hemshin peoples, which is directed at you and requires your attention. I hope you address the matter in question, to facilitate the adjustment of this Mediation to one which is suitable for formal dispute resolution.

If you have any questions, please don′t hesitate to get in touch.

Anthøny 12:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hemshin peoples. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Reply

Hmm, ok how about I unprotect the page. However, instead of reverting immediately to your version, first implement some of your changes that you think will be least controversial. If no one reverts that, continue to add information with reliable sources. What do you think about this idea? Khoikhoi 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi,

Your suggestion is practically that I mediate in my own mind between myself and those four users, and create a new version which is neither the ancient version protected nor the gradually evolved version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52). I could not get myself to say "OK" to this suggestion due to the following (you might find some, if not all, to be repetitions of what I had already stated earlier).

Those four users have not given any clue as to what they oppose so I have no means to judge between more or less controversial.

Moreover, they have staged a concerted action of reverts and created a background leading to the protection of an outdated version. They have not only ignored my repeated calls for discussion before the protection but have also blocked a mediation request thereafter. Even assuming good faith, I find this attitude to be unacceptable and I don't think this attitude should be rewarded by any means.

I believe the more proper option is that we start from the fully referenced version 9 August 2008 (15.52), which was gradually developed over a time period of about a year and which was still under discussion at the date of the protection. Those four users would join the discussion if they wish to contribute... Given the situation I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on this entry for some time to come and help that edits are affected preferably after discussion and by no means in wholesale manner.Omer182 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the anon's talk page. If he reverts again I'll semi-protect it in order to force him to discuss. Khoikhoi 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to the other users involved in the reverting too. Khoikhoi 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)