Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
BoogaLouie is currently blocked from editing. See [[User_talk:BoogaLouie#Statement_.5Bon_arbitration_of_1953_coup_article.5D_by_BoogLouie]]. |
BoogaLouie is currently blocked from editing. See [[User_talk:BoogaLouie#Statement_.5Bon_arbitration_of_1953_coup_article.5D_by_BoogLouie]]. |
||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by uninvolved party Khoikhoi === |
||
As an uninvolved administrator, I have observed and taken note of the ongoing issues at [[1953 Iranian coup d'état]] for a long time. I have also watched the behavior of the parties involved, and issued three blocks to the editors whom I consider to be the main sources of the problem. I don't think that Arbitration is necessary in this case, given the content-related nature of the dispute. As far as the behavioral issues are concerned, a proactive stance by the administrators should solve the issues. |
|||
Regarding the dispute itself, we basically have one clique of politically-motivated editors led by BoogaLouie, who are attempting to turn the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article into an editorial about how the coup was wholly justified, and how Mosaddegh was an "evil" character who deserved to be overthrown. They have clashed with another politically-motivated group of editors led by Kurdo777, who have reacted to this proactive POV-pushing by engaging in their own disruptive behavior. |
|||
It should also be noted that Binksternet, the filing party, is one of the worst instigators of the disruption at the coup article, constantly engaged in POV-pushing, and has done more edit waring on the article that any other involved party. His edits have also by no means been "neutral" as he claims. That said, the main culprit on the article has been BoogaLouie, who has a history of abusive sockpuppetry, disruption, and ideologically-motivated POV-pushing on a range of pages dealing with Islam and the Middle East. |
|||
I believe that it is not necessary at this stage to accept this case, largely because of it being a content dispute. The individual behavioral problems can be handled by the administrators. However, if it were to be accepted, I would recommend sanctions against BoogaLouie, Kurdo777, and Binksternet as the three main sources of the disruption. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 02:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 5} === |
=== Statement by {Party 5} === |
Revision as of 02:12, 28 April 2010
Requests for arbitration
1953 Iranian coup POV
Initiated by Binksternet (talk) at 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC), regarding a history of point-of-view editing at the article 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
Involved parties
- Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- BoogaLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CasualObserver'48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RayAYang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jacob Lundberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SnowFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Work permit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Skywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wayiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 4twenty42o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RossF18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Binksternet, as filing party
- BoogaLouie
- CasualObserver'48
- RayAYang
- Lapsed Pacifist
- Jacob Lundberg
- SnowFire
- Work permit
- Kurdo777
- Skywriter
- Wayiran
- Alborz Fallah
- Babakexorramdin, also known as Kamranmirza
- 4twenty42o
- RossF18
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- SnowFire's 20 June 2009 request at Neutral point of view noticeboard. No response.
- SnowFire's 21 June 2009 request at the Content Noticeboard. Binksternet responded, and began to try and work out a solution by editing the article and by talk page discussions.
- RayAYang's 30 October 2009 request at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Kurdo777 responded to him there, but two neutral editors differed.
- CasualObserver'48's 6 March 2010 request at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Answered by Work permit, who continued with the case even after realizing that it was not a matter of simple third opinion to decide between two parties; it was more than two parties, and issues were complex.
- User_talk:Binksternet/Archive9#Request_for_mediation_not_accepted: Binksternet filed a request for mediation on 11 March 2010, but Kurdo777 and Skywriter were among the named parties who did not respond to the notice within a week, and without 100% response by all parties, the request was not accepted on 20 March.
- Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#RfC:_George_Lenczowski_as_reference: 23 March, Binksternet started a talk page RfC about one of the sources that had been questioned. The RfC was not closed by an administrator; its notice was removed by a bot on 22 April after expiration. The RfC did not bring conclusive results.
Statement by Binksternet
After joining the article and its discussion in June 2009, I have seen a pattern of editing behavior primarily by Kurdo777 and Skywriter, supported at times by others, in which Mohammad Mosaddegh, the deposed prime minister of Iran, is shown as unflawed and heroic. Any attempts to bring a step-by-step historic sequence to the actual coup is resisted, as those steps include Mosaddegh losing some of his supporters, Mosaddegh rigging an election, and Mosaddegh seizing emergency powers, resulting in accusations from Abol-Ghasem Kashani, Iran's Parliament Speaker, of dictator-type behavior from Mosaddegh. These events are recounted by Ervand Abrahamian and by Stephen Kinzer, both of whose books on the subject are otherwise used all over the article to support facts and figures. However, when Abrahamian- or Kinzer-sourced facts are brought forward that put Mosaddegh in a non-heroic light, those edits are reverted with the complaint that the facts are cherry-picked, point-of-view, and undue weight. Accusations of article ownership have been included in these reversions. Other sources such as those from George Lenczowski who was during his life a university professor of Middle East studies, have been rejected as fringe beliefs, though Lenczowski is widely cited in scholarly papers, and is cited by Abrahamian and Kinzer.
Editors Work permit, RayAYang, SnowFire, CasualObserver'48, Lapsed Pacifist, Jacob Lundberg, RossF18 and myself have all tried to achieve a neutral point of view, but have been sandbagged at every turn by Kurdo777 (aka User:KneeJuan) and Skywriter, and to a lesser degree by Wayiran, Alborz Fallah, Babakexorramdin (aka User:Kamranmirza), and 4twenty42o. BoogaLouie, currently blocked for a month by User:Khoikhoi, has been at the forefront of the attempt to bring another voice to the article, though his efforts have at times over-balanced the non-neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by RayAYang
My involvement with this article is more or less limited to one episode, when I first came upon the article and noticed some rather horrifically slanted rhetoric more appropriate to agit-prop than an encyclopedia. The changes I made in my first pass are basically here [1]. I was promptly reverted. Over the course of the following week or two, a spirited discussion ensued b/w mostly myself, Kurdo777, Binksternet, with interjections from other editors. I believe Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état/Archive_7#Beware_WP:OWN contains most of that discussion, except for my appeal to the NPOVN. Suffice to say, Kurdo777 made a vigorous effort to defend the rhetoric involved and was, if not immune to reason, at least very well shielded from it. He had very convenient and highly unconventional understandings of both English usage and Wikipedia custom, and in my opinion, displayed all the trappings of a determined POV pusher.
I have had no further involvement with the article once those initial (what I considered to be open-and-shut) edits were discussed, not because I consider the article satisfactory, but because my interest in it waned. I wish I could say I was surprised that this mess is still ongoing, and if other avenues have truly been exhausted, I think some form of ArbCom action would be appropriate. This article is still a disgrace. RayTalk 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by BoogaLouie
BoogaLouie is currently blocked from editing. See User_talk:BoogaLouie#Statement_.5Bon_arbitration_of_1953_coup_article.5D_by_BoogLouie.
Statement by uninvolved party Khoikhoi
As an uninvolved administrator, I have observed and taken note of the ongoing issues at 1953 Iranian coup d'état for a long time. I have also watched the behavior of the parties involved, and issued three blocks to the editors whom I consider to be the main sources of the problem. I don't think that Arbitration is necessary in this case, given the content-related nature of the dispute. As far as the behavioral issues are concerned, a proactive stance by the administrators should solve the issues.
Regarding the dispute itself, we basically have one clique of politically-motivated editors led by BoogaLouie, who are attempting to turn the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article into an editorial about how the coup was wholly justified, and how Mosaddegh was an "evil" character who deserved to be overthrown. They have clashed with another politically-motivated group of editors led by Kurdo777, who have reacted to this proactive POV-pushing by engaging in their own disruptive behavior.
It should also be noted that Binksternet, the filing party, is one of the worst instigators of the disruption at the coup article, constantly engaged in POV-pushing, and has done more edit waring on the article that any other involved party. His edits have also by no means been "neutral" as he claims. That said, the main culprit on the article has been BoogaLouie, who has a history of abusive sockpuppetry, disruption, and ideologically-motivated POV-pushing on a range of pages dealing with Islam and the Middle East.
I believe that it is not necessary at this stage to accept this case, largely because of it being a content dispute. The individual behavioral problems can be handled by the administrators. However, if it were to be accepted, I would recommend sanctions against BoogaLouie, Kurdo777, and Binksternet as the three main sources of the disruption. Khoikhoi 02:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 5}
Statement by {Party 6}
Statement by {Party 7}
Statement by {Party 8}
Statement by {Party 9}
Statement by {Party 10}
Statement by {Party 11}
Statement by {Party 12}
Statement by {Party 13}
Statement by {Party 14}
Statement by {Party 15}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)
- Decline Other then the not-successful mediation, no Formal Dispute resolution has been done on this case. I'd suggest a formal RFC before this comes here. I will be willing to be persuaded that this is an unusual case that would be better served by arbcom taking the case rather then having it go through RfC, but right now, I think that it's better served at a lower level. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Decline per Fozzie — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
controversial edits to Sharia article by Jayzames without consensus, unusual contrib history
Initiated by Aquib (talk) at 13:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties
- aquib american muslim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- jayzames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Aquib_american_muslim#Requesting_arbitration_on_Sharia_article
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Talk:Sharia#Neutrality_in_doubt
Statement by aquib american muslim
I am a newbie, and have stuck to trying to clean up this Sharia article. beginning here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&diff=357114036&oldid=357103172 , Jayzames made huge edits to the article. This specific edit was made before any discussion began. His discussions have been general in nature, and he does not wish to discuss specifics. The exception to this has been with the beginning of the article, where he asserts that Sharia is unchanging. He uses a definition of Sharia which excludes fiqh to assert Sharia cannot change. This is a controversial assertion, there is no consensus as to whether fiqh is part of Sharia (see definitions section). In fact, in some of his versions, he has excluded fiqh from Sharia. I am of the opinion this user is causing harm to the article and introducing bias. I cannot seem to have a discussion on the merits. I believe this user is acting in bad faith. I would like to see all his recent Sharia edist reverted, and have him blocked from the page. If I seem upset it's because I am. Thanks Aquib (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
- Per Carcharoth's suggestion, I have left a note on the filing party's talkpage. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)
- Decline appears only talk page efforts so far. Arbcom is the last step in dispute resolution. See WP:DR, WP:ANI, etc. I think the community and our admins could well sort this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Decline. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Decline - I have suggested that a clerk help the filer find the correct stage of dispute resolution to find help in resolving this dispute, as there is a clearly a problem here, just not one for ArbCom to deal with. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Decline - Extremely premature for Arbcom. Please take the advice of the Clerk. KnightLago (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)