Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Case Opened on 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.


 * Initiated by  the Mediation Committee at 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.
 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.
 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.
 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.
 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.
 * - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute. I refuse to deal with this user (Marky48) anymore.

Previous attempts at dispute resolution:
 * Request for Mediation which was Rejected by myself today.

Statement by ^demon
Copied+pasted from my rejection of the RfM: "Reject: I was going to notify the two non-signing parties that they needed to sign in order for Mediation to continue, but upon an inspection of Marmoulak's talk page, I came across this section. The comment made by Marky48 (diff), with the edit summary of 'Say goodnight Dick,' followed by his second comment lead me to believe he is not sincere in mediation, and merely wishes to impose punishment upon those disagreeing with him. For these grounds, I am rejecting mediation, as I feel it will not be conductive. I hereby refer the case to the ArbCom for a binding resolution."
 * I am tired of dealing with this uncooperative user (Marky48). It is time-consuming, and I'm getting nowhere. Not only that, but as I continue to think about it off-wiki, it's obviously interferring with my everyday life. I'm not dealing with this anymore. - ^ demon [yell at me] 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Marky48
I brought this up for mediation because of multiple reverts with two users who have been writing the article for a year. Both are Iranian and this is only an issue if it affects NPOV. It has been noticed early on in the discussion Talk:Iran-Iraq War it is heavily tilted in favor of Iran who appears guiltless in the whole lengthy piece, and the US and Iraq are hammered using allegations by far left independent journalists and professors inflating the role of the US in instigating and prosecuting the war for apparently their own ends. "Allegedly there was a secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.

My concern is this assertion in the lead paragraph. It's a rumor. All sources have said in their sources that it is an "allegation," and based on one sentence by then SOS Alexander Haig, not exactly a disinterested party in seeing Jimmy Carter fail. Haig refuses to comment on his statement about Carter supposedly "greenlighting" the war and no one has seen the memo, thus, it's a minor allegation. As used by these two editors it's a smoking gun and the lead cause of the war. They've said as much. I erased it; moved it further down in the US involvement section, and added an "allegedly," only the latter remains, albeit with a fight from the two users over it, but allegations don't go in the lead. This isn't a British tabloid.

Moreover, the chemical weapons section is likewise heavily skewed to US contributions which are small in comparision to other countries and identified in the article. No worries, a small US company gets the lead graphs, and two Bell helicopters the indictment for deliberately spreading chemicals over the citizenry of Irag and Iran. These two seem to think that if a journalist says it it's gospel truth. In every case here they report an allegation not a proven fact. Sure it's a source, but an inconclusive one, thus the claim should not be in a neutral piece. I have a journalism degree and if we had written this piece for a class we'd have flunked. It's screamingly biased and so flooded with sources that anyone reading the leads would just accept that position. They won't see anything else. That's why allegations work so well as propaganda.

And one statement on personal conduct. It is insulting to be goaded and refuted after weeks of argument for attempting to get an infractor to go to mediation. I failed at that but let's not make this about minor process infractions, albeit extremely subjective. For example a so-called personal attack is identified in a response to an attack and slur, and the original slur just goes unpunished. That just happened here and it can occur frequently. Don't let the guilty get away with this. They play the administrators here like a Tennessee fiddle. It's not right or helpful and is a side issue at best. The content is where the focus should be not personalities.

refused to sign the mediation. He's the only one who wouldn't and since he is the gist of the problem that pretty much killed the mediation not anything I said or did in trying to change his mind according to Demon. That's a fallacy of false cause. He knows he'll fail under scrutiny. I've outlined why.

Is there an arbitration committe member who isn't from England? And keep in mind my lineage comes from Colburn, Yorkshire. The Iranian kid won't sign on to a mediation. What part of that is unclear? How do we get mediation without enforcement capability? I'm afraid I don't follow this sort of pretzel logic. Perhaps someone could explain this angle to me?Marky48 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Evidence of edit war over these same edits.Marky48 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the coment from SAJordan This user is a stalker from another article and is trying to use character assassination as a form of revenge for contesting his edits. They're allowing the edits to stand as a limited use source e.g. blogs but that's a legitimate challenge. Most of the editors on the disemvoweling article are friends of the blog in question and the blogger herself edited the article on herself for a time to support the context of the complaints. This attack a false accusation of vandalism has nothing to do with actual editing content on this article in the arbcom request (which seems to be stabilizing) and should be disregarded. It appears this user SAJordan has a record of jumping into others' business as the Requests for Clarification section on user CoolCat illustrates below.

When groups of editors who share a particular genre affinity and POV inline with the subject of an article get to oust anyone who disapproves and trying to maintain NPOV it makes a mockery of the system and is group bullying. So far adminstrators are falling for it. That's an opinion supported by facts contained in the edits. As you can see here they have a close network setup and no one can touch the article without warnings going out. They even call Will Beback "biased' against the subject, thus he was forced to compromise and allow it. I respect Will's decsion but they clearly sandbagged him. The post just linked proves it.

Moreover, for one edit on the aforementioned article he charged me with vandalism. To which an administrator responded: "It's bad form to label the good faith edits of others as "vandalism". The Wikipedia usage of the term is defined in Vandalism." -Will Beback 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I've asked this user to strike his attempt at discrediting me here on his talk page but he's only been combative and refuses, preferring to mock my requests to remove me from his list of subject topics of conversation on his page.

It's also pretty evident that the rejection of this mediation was done out of an overly emotional reading of my comments. No one can determine my desire for mediation is nil as demon has when it was I that requested it. Circular logic. Marky48 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am tired of dealing with this uncooperative user (Marky48)"

I consider this a personal attack and false on its face. On the contrary, I'm the only one in this who HAS cooperated. I'll take a good argument from anyone but I won't take a bad one at all regardless of the source or status. My edits outlined above have been restored. The other areas in question in this article, which has been tagged for cleanup, are under edit wars still with the same editors I was, but it's between them and the others listed in this complaint. This is not about me, it's about the article so I'm getting a George Armstrong Custer feeling about the whole thing at this point. Marky48 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing the latest statement from medcom, I will only add again that my statements in stating what "could" happen should the other parties not join mediation continue to be taken way out of context. I fully admit to being unclear about the scope of the mediation process e.g. voluntary or formal, but it is obvious that lack of cooperation would lead here. It isn't however, my fault. Nor should I continue to be ridiculed in this process. No one else has responded, even on my side. I've cooperated fully, yet somehow this seems like a continuing liability. I'm no longer editing the article since I tagged it for nuetrality issues. That suffices for me. Others have asked those to sign this arbcom on talk pages, but as we can see they still refuse and continue to revert. This is the record to date and I am no longer involved. Marky48 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Khosrow
The User claims that we have a POV because we are Iranian. Well can't the same be said of him and his possible POV due to where he comes from? Starting of this discussion with that statement clearly shows that this is all his POV. Also, it seems that the article, since his above comment, has been modified quite a bit so that it should be acceptable to Mark. Is there anything more to discuss? I have been busy and have not been able to make or get myself invovled in, lengthy discussions. I apologize, but everything seems to be fine now, correct?Khosrow II 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement on behalf of the Mediation Committee
The rejection of the Request for Mediation by User:^demon, in his capacity as Acting Chairman of the Mediation Committee, was unequivocally the correct decision in the face of the statements provided. The rules of the Mediation Committee do not provide for mediation between unconsenting parties, and specifically provide for rejection of cases where the motive for filing the request is vengence. The comments linked to by ^demon demonstrate a clear intention to use mediation as a tool of revenge and make mediation impossible; they are a disruption of the formal dispute resolution process and a violation of Mediation Committee policy.

The Arbitration Policy makes specific reference to the referral of matters to the Arbitration Committee by the Mediation Committee; the Mediation Committee does not take this responsibility lightly and only makes referral of matters where it is determined that arbitration is an inevitible result.

The Mediation Committee affirms the referral of this matter to the Arbitration Committee, and in line with the Arbitration policy urges the Arbitration Committee in the strongest fashion to accept the matter for final binding resolution.


 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Reject. Only shallow grounds given for not taking this seriously to mediation. Charles Matthews 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Accept, in the light of clarification from the Mediation side. Charles Matthews 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, as per Charles Matthews. Accept since mediation didn't work out. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept, mediation was rejected. Fred Bauder 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Motion to dismiss
1) The parties in this matter have produced very little useable evidence. This matter is dismissed for lack of evidence.


 * passed 6-0 at 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.