Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Request for word limit extension

CaptainEEK asked me on my talk page to elaborate on which editors besides the named parties have been involved in this dispute, and who therefore may need to have their behavior examined. I am compiling this list, but it is necessarily a little wordy; I ask that this particular list and associated evidence not be counted toward my word or diff limit. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I have a lot of time for a request like this but because this is the first of what could be several extension requests can you ballpark how much of an relaxing you'll need? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: For the purposes of documenting other involved parties, I'd say 50 words and 3 diffs per editor (which strikes me as quite reasonable), and I expect to list between 6 and 8 other editors. So perhaps I can make do with 400 words and 20 diffs; I can promise this extra evidence will be straightforward, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 great. Let's bump you to 1k total words and 100 diffs (as if you were a party) at the moment and see where that gets you. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El C's evidence

@El C: in your evidence you write about the difficulties in organizing evidence. That alone is of some value but, and I am speaking only for myself here,I am always interested in evidence by uninvolved editors who have attempted to mediate a solution introduce evidence along the lines of "Here's a thing going on. Proving it all is hard but here's a diff or two of what I'm talking about." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, this was years ago, so it's hard for me to remember and I just don't know if I'll be able to spare hours and hours toward this, sorry. El_C 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, El_C asked do impressions from my mind count?. I would humbly opine that letting uninvolved editors, who have spent a lot of time in this area, give their impressions (even without diffs or other evidence) could be valuable. (Parties such as myself would still need to dig up diffs and give context). I would assume that it would be less time onerous for one to simply write about their impressions. I don't mean to be presumptuous or pressuring (apologies if I am).VR _talk 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Impressions of uninvolved editors can be of some value. Because impressions are harder for a party to give counter-evidence to or to contextualize in a different way diffs remain at the center of what ArbCom does. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @El C: I believe that you are very a experienced admin with regards to the page. You certainly did a great deal to resolve the disputes. That is why I believe your comments are really missing here. May I kindly ask you let us know your valuable thoughts? I know that seems to be time-consuming, but there are evidences and diffs provided by users now. Those diffs and comments may alleviate your work. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

List of involved parties

Apologies if I have misled by my absence; I had not completed the list of parties I consider involved before RL called me away. I will complete it as soon as I am able, hopefully in the next 36 hours. I generally take no issue with the inclusions other users have suggested. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I expect we'll add at least some of the parties suggested. However, out of procedural fairness it will mean we extend the timetable. As such finishing in the next 36 hours is somewhat important. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I will do my best. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am finished with adding to this list. There have been other participants; I don't think I had appreciated until today the extent to which the cast had shifted while the drama kept going; but I think we've got all those who have kept it going. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Just publicly acknowledging that this had been seen and is being discussed - it's taken us a little longer than I hoped which is why I hadn't already left an acknowledgement. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @CodeLyoko: I'm wondering if the two parties you just added to the case are the only ones ARBCOM is planning on adding, or if further additions are being discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Those are the only two we plan to add. Our feeling is that in a dispute such as this it will be expected that further work will happen after the case through GS/DS if there are others who are being disruptive. If one of the people suggested wished to be a party we would consider them in that case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I am a little surprised by a couple of non-inclusions, but I understand the need to keep the case manageable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @CodeLyoko: Hi, should users like user:Bahar1397 receive a note on their talk pages? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Some posts are out of place

Two posts in this section shouldn't be there, but should be in the users' own section. Polite pings to the two recently active clerks GeneralNotability and CodeLyoko.VR _talk 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done I moved them to here for now, since they where just objecting to what was posted instead of making a rebuttal. CodeLyoko^talk 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Shiasun

• @Stefka Bulgaria: I am an active user of fawiki. therefore, it is not surprising that i am edited articles related to iran.

  By the way, all the things i said in that RFC were with reason and source, and I did not say anything unreasonable so that you would say that I have created a problem on that page.

  I always watch those pages and when i can help wiki by commenting, i do not hesitate to.

  I also suggest you read this. Shiasun (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This was moved from the evidence page as a reply to evidence posted by Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) CodeLyoko^talk 22:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Maqdisi117

• @Stefka Bulgaria: I'm getting rather tired of these baseless accusations when I have no connections with any of the above listed individuals. If this behavior continues, I will most likely be forced to seek help from one of the administrators on this page.Maqdisi117 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This was moved from the evidence page as a reply to evidence posted by Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) CodeLyoko^talk 22:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Timetable extension?

Barkeep49 You mentioned a possible timetable extension above; any word on what this will look like? I'd rather not engage in a mad scramble to add evidence over the next three days, if we're going to get much more time after that. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The case clerks should respond to you shortly. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 the clerks have gotten the information and so that will hopefully go up soon. But since you asked, we will be extending the Evidence phase by 2 weeks to give the new parties we're adding a full time period to participate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 will this extension be given to the "old" parties (e.g me) too? Or is our deadline still Aug 6?VR _talk 21:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent the extension will be for everyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Dreamy Jazz and Barkeep49 is the deadline end of the day (UTC) August 17 (as opposed to beginning of day)?VR _talk 17:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  Vice regent, At the end of the day. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Moneytrees . @El C: it seems you're under the impression that the deadline is tonight, but its tomorrow night (i.e. its more than 24 hours from now).VR _talk 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, thanks for picking up on that VR and for clarifying Moneytrees. Still, even with that increased time, it's a bit of a tight deadline, so targeted requests (as opposed to a review of one's entire evidence section) to me would be best, at least if my if imy response is to happen on the evidence page proper, as opposed to a talk page, where I suppose I could confirm/reaffirm, etc. just the same, so long as the arbs see it, at least. Unless that's in bad form...? I honestly don't know. I'm not really too experienced with the procedures of a full arbitration case to have a good grasp of its rules or even just etiquette. El_C 17:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

I have spent several hours today trying to sift useful evidence from the morass that is Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. I recognize that it would be useful to have the clearest evidence of misconduct summarized, so I will continue to do so. I would, however, urge those of you who have the time to read clear through the archives of that talk page for the last couple of years. I think nothing else can give quite the same understanding of the dispute and the behavior of all the participants. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Red Phoenix's evidence review

Struck per Barkeep's note - will re-add at workshop stage Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear I have been delayed in the thorough reading of the evidence so I will admit I have not done more than a simple read of Red's evidence yet but I would suggest that this might better belong as Analysis of Evidence over in the workshop than as a talk page comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I read your talk page post because I was pinged to it, and I'm happy to help clarify. Having never participated in an Arbcom case before, when I wrote up my evidence, I took a strict approach to the 500 word limit and used a word counter. I'm more than glad to provide a deeper dive if you would like; my goal in providing evidence was to show what I observed in giving my recommendation that the committee take the case. Based on Barkeep49's post above, it seems this might be best done during Analysis of Evidence, and I'll be more than willing to help out in providing context and defending my viewpoint on the evidence. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I am drafting a clarification to provide context. It will take quite a few more words (as it, admittedly, should have done when I first wrote it up). As such, I may ask for a higher word limit and just handle this now, but I'm not done drafting yet due to available time. I only want for my observations to be clear, and having read Nosebagbear's post and then rereading my evidence, I definitely do see that what I didn't cut out and posted was a bit too scant in context to illustrate what I saw. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: - that sounds positive, and generally the arbs seem pretty willing to provide additional words to clarify points where it's going to be useful. Think the best thing is for me to wait for the expansion - if that clarifies then problem solved, if not then I can ask some questions about it in the workshop phase Nosebagbear (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Per this discussion, may I have an additional 500 words to provide context and clarify? Even as I reread my own evidence now with fresh eyes, I see that my attempt to keep my evidence within 500 words resulted in a significant loss of context. If after that point Nosebagbear or any other editors have questions or concerns, I'll be glad to discuss it at Analysis of Evidence during the Workshop phase, but I think I should be clearer before we get there. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix you're good with 500 more words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A question with subsection titles

The evidences provided here [1][2] contain too long subsection titles which I think is misrepresenting me. Should the titles change? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Pinging Barkeep49 for their kind attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein the titles do make strong claims so I understand why you disagree. The claims are backed by evidence and the arbitrators will look at that evidence and use our judgement to decide if the claims are justified or not. You are also able to provide your own evidence or explanation. As for their length, I'm going to discuss it with others. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks you. I am waiting for the result of your discussion. On my part, I tried to have neutral titles. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for extension

@Barkeep49: As a party to this case, I have tried to provide my evidences but am concerned with the length restrictions. Could I kindly ask for an additional 500 words for a better portrayal of the diffs and evidences? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I am also a bit concerned about length restrictions. Could I also please have a 500-word extension? (I'll do my best not to use it, but would be good to know is there just in case). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I definitely also need a 500 word extension, would you be kind enough to grant it? Thanks.VR _talk 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and @Vice regent if you need it, you can also have 500 words more (1500 total). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!VR _talk 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Note to Stefka Bulgaria

When I posted my evidence, I said "if you see any mistakes or misrepresentations leave a message on User talk:Vice regent. I'm very amenable to feedback." So I wish to politely extend this same courtesy to @Stefka Bulgaria:. Arbs please let me know if I'm out of line here and I'll strike this section. Stefka I feel you may have missed some things when you compiled your evidence regarding me.

• You correctly pointed out that I removed “shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution”. But this was accidental and I restored that back only 5 minutes later. Did you miss my self-revert?
• You correctly pointed out that I proposed the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule, which was not in any sources. But I fixed my mistake as soon as Alex-h pointed it out, in case you missed this.
• You wrote "Here I respond to VR [about SYNTH concerns]...Then VR argues that 'many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented'..." But if you look at the timestamps of your diffs, it is the other way around. First I presented "many, many sources" and then you told me about your SYNTH concerns. And as soon as you raised the concern, I agreed with you and tried to address it.

I know that I would appreciate it if people reviewed my evidence for mistakes and gave me an opportunity to correct them. Again I apologize in advance if this is not the right place for this.VR _talk 18:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)