Revision as of 16:25, 8 May 2010

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

1. Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
2. BoogaLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. CasualObserver'48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. RayAYang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Jacob Lundberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. SnowFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Work permit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Skywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Wayiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Babakexorramdin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. 4twenty42o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. RossF18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

1. Binksternet, as filing party
2. BoogaLouie
3. CasualObserver'48
4. RayAYang
5. Lapsed Pacifist
6. Jacob Lundberg
7. SnowFire
8. Work permit
9. Kurdo777
10. Skywriter
11. Wayiran
12. Alborz Fallah
13. Babakexorramdin, also known as Kamranmirza
14. 4twenty42o
15. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• Re: to Khoikhoi. Wow. Just wow. I class myself among the least politically motivated people involved with the article. In my opinion, Work permit has the same kind of neutral point of view, and there may be others. If I did have a political agenda acting upon this article, it would be on the side of self-determination for Iran, not external interference. I am proud to be a political liberal, living and voting among other liberals in Oakland, California, and my upbringing and schooling emphasized this aspect. I have been taught thoroughly about the bad things the CIA has done including killing Allende in Chile, the bad things U.S. based multinationals have done in the name of business, and the bad things the U.S. presidents and military have done. I am no knee-jerk U.S. hater, nor am I a political hawk pushing for the American exceptionalist position as self-appointed police of the world. Here on Misplaced Pages, I have demonstrated a hot temper when I am on a roll editing, but I cannot have demonstrated anything like what you say you have observed. If you really think I am grinding an ax against Iran, I suggest diving deeper into the sources to see what they say, and to figure out why I might wish to show a complete picture of Mosaddegh rather than the one-sided image drawn in the article. I am astonished at your perception. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re: to Kurdo777: You write "No genuine attempts at solving this dispute have been made by the involved parties", but this is patently untrue for me. Every single move I have made at the article and in the talk, and my efforts to gain mediation or arbitration are all genuinely focused on improving the article. I have no interest in toying with the article, wasting everybody's time. You also include yourself in that global statement; are your efforts not genuine? Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re: to AGK: Formal mediation was requested, but among the eight editors listed, Kurdo777, Wayiran and Skywriter failed to indicate their consent. After one week of no response from them on the request page, the request was denied for lack of full participation. Instead of indicating his willingness to take part in the mediation process and comply with mediation results, Skywriter instead wrote about his view of the problem on the request's talk page. Skywriter has since insisted that he was directed to this talk page, but in this diff it is clear that he was directed to the project page, where he did not sign his name to accept mediation. Because mediation was refused by these three editors, I do not expect another attempt to work. In fact, that is exactly why I am here at ArbCom: to "break the back" of the dispute in a manner that does not require willingness or acceptance. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 3 May 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Ray 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 the modern history of Iran.

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 Kurdo777

No genuine attempts at solving this dispute have been made by the involved parties. Instead, Binksternet and BoogaLouie have been openly tag-teaming, WP:GAMING, and campaigning in an attempt to create a consensus against me and other editors on that page -- as opposed to working with us to improve the article. When the result of the RfC they filled was against their POV, they ignored it, calling it "inconclusive" and continued with their "hunt" for like-minded editors to agree with them. BoogaLouie has used this tactic on the talk page of the article as well, by copy/pasting the same arguments over and over, and fishing for editors to take his side (a clear violation of WP:FORUMSHOP). They have treated the dispute resolution process as an obstacle to overcome, instead of properly following the stages set forth by WP:DISPUTE. These two comments in particular by BoogaLouie addressed to Binksternet and another editor, are solid proof that BoogaLouie has been gaming the dispute resolution process. Furthermore, Binksternet and BoogaLouie never requested informal mediation or a request for a comment before jumping to MedCom, knowing that one of the editors was inactive and unable to respond in time. Now, within days of BoogaLouie getting blocked for one month for "WP:NOR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLP violations; general combative, ideological editing pattern," Binksternet has filled this request, in what appears to be a coordinated off-wiki effort with BoogaLouie. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by CasualObserver'48

This arbitration absolutely should be accepted; my involvement in the article, and on Wiki generally since, may be a good indicator of why. Prior to this edit in mid-January, I had no involvement. These basic differences remain an indicator of its non-neutral character; there are other RS'd points of view that should be included, and frankly, these have been excluded. Misplaced Pages may not take its normal NPOV bow for this content, until these other povs are included, and at this point I see arbitration as the only way toward that NPOV goal. We are supposed to use RSs, not just some, or just new, or just specialty references; I see ownership establishing the article's consensus and content. Please do your job on this one and accept, rather than deciding it is not your job.

My first talkpage post, still summarizes the problems of neutrality noted by many, as you may have noticed from the length of the talkpage, these are very much ongoing. I was heavily involved for the next 2+ months. I asked for a 3O, got it, and it was helpful to some degree, but accomplished little toward any change or progress; my last involvement was to present a barnstar for that good effort at the end of March. And then, frustration took over and I lost interest in Wiki generally; volunteered time and effort should not be met with the likes of this. As an inclusionist, I do not object to inclusion of others' RS's povs, but I strenuously object when the same AGF is not given or allowed for other RSs who differ. That is the problem here, and arbitration is the only way. While I had been making edits in the hundreds per month happily, this frustration has caused my general involvement to drop like a rock. If this is arbitration is accepted, I will engage positively toward a solution, and sooner; without it, I am left only to my own devices for getting out of this funk.

This statement reflects my current negative mood concerning the likelihood of your acceptance, because two arbs have 'declined' already; I feel that Risker's view is more appropriate at this point, since several others have not made statements. For those who have made statements, I should only echo Bink's Wow and Ray's state of disgrace, but will add that Kurdo'd first sentence is quite inaccurate, but typical. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Xashaiar

I have never seriously edited the page 1953 coup. I only took part in the discussions a couple of times, trying to encourage them and at the same time mediate between the two sides. What I noticed was the highly unusual partisan nature of some of the involved parties and rapidly changing topics in the discussions. The editor that caught my attention most was BoogaLouie, who displayed all the signs of a determined ideologically (and maybe politically)-motivated POV pusher trying to whitewash the coup and promote an extreme pro-Shah POV. Likewise, Kurdo77 on the other side, also looked like a POV-pusher with an anti-Shah agenda of his own. Another editor that caught my eye was CasualObserver'48, who was trying to use outdated sources and siding with BoogaLouie. I looked further into this latter editor's history, and he apparently worked for the Shah's government in Iran sometime before the revolution in 1979, which was a surprising revelation for me and maybe others. But this explained his vigorous effort to defend the Shah and the coup, and also use one of shah's friends as a source on the page. Needless to say that all this seemed very odd and WP:COIish to me. Xashaiar (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Skywriter

Who are --and who should be-- the central sources for this article?

Scholars who have written books specifically about this subject should be the central sources They have done the most work, given the most thought to, and are therefore the most reliable sources. I have added them all to the article Bibliography and have annotated some and plan to continue to annotate each resource as time allows.

It is difficult to add content by scholars who wrote entire books about the article subject due to the insistence on the use of a parade of obscure and arcane writers. At one point, however, there was a glimmer of hope. After arguing for more than a year that one of this parade of obscure resources, (O'Reilly, author of a prohibitively expensive and remotely available junior high school textbook) should be in the article lead, Binksternet and comrades finally conceded, by not reverting an edit, that the junior high text and a tourism guide (!) are inappropriate. It took too long and too many arguments for this silliness to recede.

The cure for all of this is to rely on reliable sources-- the scholars who have written books about the article topic.

Instead of focusing on minors who might have off-the-cuff opinions but no real research in the form of substantive books about the 1953 coup, the article editors need to explore the works of historians who have. The most reliable secondary sources who have written the most on-topic books are: Stephen Dorril, Mostafa Elm, L.P. Sutton, all three books by Gasiorowski, Mary Ann Heiss, and two books by Kinzer. Next in historical importance is Manuchihr Farmanfarmaiyan. The full references for all of these I have placed in the Book section.

This Misplaced Pages article will not improve until the editors focus on the work of scholars who have written extensively about the coup rather than those who have written about it tangentially. The article will also not improve until a few editors stop searching for obscure sources to press viewpoints unsupported by scholars who have written extensively on the coup. Skywriter (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RossF18

Personally, I think arbitration might be the only way to solve the stalemate. For over 2 years, if not longer, round and round we go with mainly 5 or 6 core editors pointing out the same arguments and with the article swinging back and forth without any hope for stopping in the middle. While I'm a very minor participant, any attempts on my part to intergect suggestions on one side or the other have proved fruitless since nothing seems to come of anything. Discussion leads to more discussion to edits and to reverts. An arbitror is long time coming. --RossF18 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Progress could be made on this dispute if it were subjected to formal mediation. Perhaps the parties might try that, if this request is rejected? AGK 02:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/4/0/1)

• 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)

• Accept changed my mind due to the new comments. If case is not accepted I strongly urge Mediation and all parties agree to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Awaiting further comment. Certain points are standing out for me, such as the repeated attempts for additional comments that yielded little or no response, using RFC and noticeboards, which raise concern about the efficacy of the earlier stages of dispute resolution, at least in this case. At this point, though, I am not sure there is enough of a behavioural component for Arbitration. Risker (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Accept after reviewing additional comments. Risker (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Accept; the disputes seems more complex that appear on the surface, and there are possible underlying COI issues that bear examining. — Coren  17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - I find Khoikhoi's statement a good summation of the problem, and am persuaded by his opinion that arbitration is not the answer yet. If later, his opinion or that of other uninvolved administrators were to change, a case could be brought and I would be likely to accept it. KnightLago (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per above; we can revisit this if the preliminary forms of dispute resolution do not produce results. Kirill  01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Accept - clear problems here that I'm not convinced other stages of dispute resolution will resolve. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - Lack of response to attempts to involve the community is not dispute resolution. Absent clear behavioral issues (which I'm really not seeing here), arbitration can't solve problems of article content, sourcing or how to use those sources. I'd strongly suggest mediation as an option. Shell 03:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending a further effort at mediation, which should be tried again promptly. I'd be ready to reconsider the request if mediation fails or if for some reason it cannot take place. I also would inquire of the parties and other editors commenting if there are other steps that might help resolve this dispute without the need for an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)