Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Proposed decision

Is the issue dead?
In response to the arbitrator that regards this issue as "dead" I would say that the controversy has not been ceased so much as deadlocked. I have refrained from editing the article in order to not be accused of starting revert wars, but I have not lost interest. As for the talk page, there has already been fruitless discussion and it is clear that the parties will not compromise any more. That's why it was brought here. But if you want me to stoke the flames in order for yourselves to regard the issue as "alive" please indicate so.

Furthermore, the fact that one party has allegedly withdrawn from the article does not affect the fact that there are many other members of the "cabal" (esp. Marm) that have not. I am not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to get the facts straight.

As for Fred's comments, if he does view the repeated removal of what he calls "well-sourced information" from the article as viable evidence against the perpetrators, I am utterly at a lost. CJK 01:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one can speak for the arbitrators but themselves, but if I were one of them, in this or in any case I would be looking for (1) specific Evidence as to what caused the problems with the article, and (2) specific proposals on the Workshop for what the Arbitration Committee should decide and why they should decide it that way. The arbitrators have lots of cases, and they need interested editors to explain each case to them with clear evidence and proposals. The more specific each party can be in providing them the information they need to work with, the faster the case can be resolved and the more accurate any final decision can hopefully be. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arbitrating content, and you've provided very little evidence other than that. You shouldn't stoke the flames unless you're looing to offer evidence against yourself for doing so. The point of arbitration is to cool the conflict, so that normal discussion and conflict resolution can take place. If there are no edit wars because you have refrained, then this is good. It means that you can then begin an amicable talk page discussion to work it out. No matter what the outcome of arbitration is, you are still going to have to work the content out amongst yourselves. Dmcdevit·t 06:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.


 * I'm not interested in arbitrating content...

Does this mean that you are personally not interested in arbitrating content or that the arbitration comittee does not arbitrate content? In either case, this is about rule violations that are related to content.


 * ...and you've provided very little evidence other than that.

That is because the issue here is whether the content in question is suitable for an encyclopedia and is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.


 * You shouldn't stoke the flames unless you're looing to offer evidence against yourself for doing so.

Exactly. That is why I am avoiding the article. You seem to believe that such avoidance indicates that the issue is dead. The issue is not dead.


 * The point of arbitration is to cool the conflict, so that normal discussion and conflict resolution can take place.

Forgive me, but I have found no evidence that that is actually the case. WP:DR states that Arbitration differs from Mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. I take this to mean that the point of arbitration is to punish offenders. Discussion has already taken place and failed. That is why it was brought here. It was not brought here so more fruitless discussion can take place.

No matter what the outcome of arbitration is, you are still going to have to work the content out amongst yourselves.

That statement greatly disturbs me. It implies that arbitration will take no action against fake evidence, deletions of sourced material, and insertions of irrelevant material. That tells me that I wasted my time here for absolutely nothing. CJK 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I really appreciate the in-depth discussion by the arbitrators to the parties involved and the extensive, credible explanation behind their votes. I hope you all have a happy new year. CJK 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The arbitration committee does not have jurisdiction over content issues (whether a source is acceptable, for instance). They only have jurisdiction over bad behavior (disruptive editing, edit wars, incivility, etc). Speaking as someone who has seen a lot of cases, the level of incivility and disruptive editing described on the evidence page is rather mild and does not really rise to the level of prior arbitration cases, certainly not to the level of placing editors on probation or banning them from the article.  You should be able to work this out through mediation.  If the case is dismissed, there is no prejudice against re-filing it if the situation deteriorates. Thatcher131 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)