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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by El_C

Evidence difficult to curate

From my perspective, the hope would be to present evidence that provides an overview of sorts, but this is the thing: the MEK article talk page currently has 44 archived sections indexed, starting in 2005 — still, I'd stress that by archive 5, we're already at 2018. By comparison, the entire Iran country article has less than half the archives indexed, 19 of them, starting in 2003 — conversely, I'd stress that by archive 10, we're still only at 2008. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at with this first note is to impress on the Committee just how difficult it is to compile and organize evidence for this case. We literally have tens upon tens of archived sections just from the past few years alone! El_C 23:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate this challenge, I was thinking about citing something specific from the article talk page, but finding it, now that's the challenge. I really don't look forward to going through potentially tens of archive sections just to find the one thing I'm looking for. Then doing so all over again for the next thing. And the next thing. Oy. El_C 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The prominence of civil POV pushing over personalized misconduct

I'm not sure how to establish this with actual evidence (do impressions from my mind count?), but I've been finding that the MEK disputes generally don't present too many issues that involve personalized misconduct. Unless much has changed recently, personal attacks and even mere incivility tend to be quite rare. El_C 23:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93's evidence (is good evidence)

• The MEK is the nexus of the dispute — the alpha and omega.

• Contentious labels for the MEK are a particular flashpoint — yes. Kudos, Vanamonde93, for compiling evidence that outlines the chronology of the cult debates! I complain, you do. I'd also add that this naturally extends to prominent individuals who are MEK proponents/opponents. So, using the cult designation disputes example: if the MEK is said to be or not to be (whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune) a cult or cult-like, the Rajavis (Maryam and Massoud), in turn, would be cult or cult-like leaders. And so on.

• Many users not listed as parties are substantially involved in this dispute — I'd also add Alex-h to that list. El_C 11:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This evidence phase — waited too long

Yesterday, more than one person had asked me to review this evidence page, but now that I look at the sheer size of it (even just the sections of those folks who requested this alone), I doubt I'd be able to give it a solid read before the evidence phase expires at midnight tonight (UTC, I presume, which would make this soon). If anyone wishes for me to review a specific set of evidences, that I can probably do. I'd note that I've been rather soured off of the MEK page, so I sort of it ignored this case (partly consciously, partly unconsciously). El_C 14:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Some final thoughts before the clock runs out

Today, I was informed that not only did SB file a bogus SPI against MH, but that it was also vice versa (perm link). That was news to me, but you know what? It does not surprise me in the slightest. Each side is very, very determined to gain any advantage they can in this perennial dispute. A good illustration of this is one of the super-trim RfCs that redacted longstanding, agreed-upon text to one twentieth (!) of its original size. (I think this is the perm link to it, but it may be to a different super-trim RfC launched around that time which only redacted longstanding, agreed-upon text to one tenth of its original size. (Sorry for the imprecision))

What I would draw from this example isn't a point in favour of the anti-MEK's camp. It's just that they lost a couple of key members around that time, so the pro-MEK camp (led by SB) railroaded them with sheer numbers. But, had the circumstances been reversed, it's likely the anti-MEK camp would have done something similar to the pro-MEK camp. Though possibly not at such an extreme scale. Because the anti-MEK camp also reflects the view of the theo-fascist Islamic regime that rules Iran, maybe they would have been more timid about it. On the flip side, while the pro-MEK camp, which represents the position of, well, the MEK, is much more Western-friendly, it's also cultish and weird and scary.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, but my point is that a perennial problem at the MEK page, on the part of both camps, is that genuine good faith there is often but a pretense to gaining ground, in any way possible. A war of attrition plaguing the project for years and years. El_C 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Vanamonde93

The MEK is the nexus of the dispute

The history and character of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK) has been the locus of most unpleasant and unproductive argument, as well as that of most visible misconduct, within the topic area. The evidence for this is largely the absence of evidence of disruption elsewhere, but the history of Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran (henceforth Talk:MEK, for brevity) is an indicator: as of today, Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein have made nearly 2,700 edits there, and Idealigic and Vice_regent contribute some additional hundreds between them.

Contentious labels for the MEK are a particular flashpoint

The nastiest, most long-winded, and least productive line of discussions has been about how Wikipedia covers the position that the MEK is a cult. The following list is just of talk page sections about this topic, ordered chronologically. October 2019, October 2019 (2), January 2020, February 2020, March 2020, March 2020 (2), April 2020, April 2020 (2), May 2020, June 2020, September 2020, August 2020, October 2020, January 2021, February 2021, February 2021 (2), February 2021 (3).

Many users not listed as parties are substantially involved in this dispute

As I said in the case request, several users besides the named parties are deeply involved in this dispute. In my opinion, this implies that their conduct also requires scrutiny. The talk page statistics are useful to understanding this pattern ([1])

BarcrMac is a party to this dispute

@BarcrMac: (signature "Barca", if you are searching through the text of a talk page) has been substantially involved in this dispute for a while. They have received two blocks and a topic ban for their conduct on this page (see GS log at WP:GS/IRANPOL). They have returned to this dispute after their most recent sanction, having made (as a rough indicator) 25 of the last 500 talk page edits. These edits include participation in contentious discussions [2]. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch is a party to this dispute

@Ghazaalch: has made 41 of the last 500 talk page edits. These edits include participation in contentious discussions [3]. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ypatch is a party to this dispute

Despite Ypatch's statement at the case request, contentious material about the MEK remains a core area of Ypatch's editing; he has engaged in recent contentious discussions [4], and essentially all his talk page contributions have to do with [5]. I also previously game them a TBAN from Iranian politics (see GS log).

Alex-h is a party to this dispute

I agree with El_C above that Alex-h has been substantially involved here. See page history above, and these edits to contentious discussions; [6], [7].

MA Javadi is a party to this dispute

In addition to the talk page statistics, the sheer number of edits MA Javadi has made to Talk:MEK in recent times [8] makes him obviously involved here.

Bahar1397 is a party to this dispute

In addition to the talk page statistics, Bahar1397 has participated substantially in the cult/not a cult dispute; see here.

Nika2020 is perhaps a party to this dispute

As Vice regent said below, Nika2020 has been involved here, including in contentious discussions [9]. However, his involvement has been more sporadic than that of many others [10]. Examining his behavior wouldn't hurt, but isn't as urgent.

Kazemita was a party to this dispute

The talk page history shows Kazemita1 was a participant in disputes on this talk page for a while, before he was indeffed for sock-puppetry [11]. I present this evidence not because further sanctions need to be considered against Kazemita1, but for completeness.

Saff V. was a party to this dispute

As the page history shows, Saff V. was an active participant in this dispute, before receiving a partial block from MEK and Talk:MEK, and subsequently a TBAN from post-1978 Iranian politics (see log at WP:GS/IRANPOL). To be transparent, I implemented both those sanctions. Including for context, as above.

Pahlevun was a party to this dispute

Pahlevun was involved in this dispute (see page stats above), and participated in some of its nastiest episodes, like this one. However, he has not edited in eight months, so I do not think he may be considered an active participant.

Many editors have treated Wikipedia as a battleground

This is, I think, the fundamental problem in this topic: a tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, and a concomittant inability to compromise and examine the content dispassionately. I have tried to illustrate some of these behaviors below. I found it quite challenging to pull diffs, because as with any case where the lines between content and conduct are blurred, a lot of these would be defensible if the sources said something different, or if they represented one-off events. As such I'm happy to answer questions about individual examples; I think I'm obligated to; but I'm really trying to provide evidence of patterns of behavior, rather than individual instances of misconduct. Also, these cannot substitute for reading entire discussions, as I said on the talk page; and for brevity, I have only pulled diffs for named parties, even though the misconduct is more widespread. Please note that I do not intend the order in which users are listed to mean anything.

Many users have personalized disputes

It is regrettably common for editors to personalize disputes at Talk:MEK in particular. This has occurred despite repeated reminders from El_C and myself to focus on content, not conduct; these reminders have often had the effect that editors ping one or both of us while personalizing disputes, often quoting us to give their posts legitimacy. I have gathered some egregious examples from the 18ish months at Talk:MEK, but there's likely very many more. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].
• BarcrMac: [23].
• Stefka Bulgaria: [24], [25], [26].
• Idealigic: [27], [28].
• Alex-h: [29], [30], [31], [32].
• Vice regent: [33].

Many users have engaged in stonewalling and whataboutism

It has been regrettably common for editors to use process details (in particular, the consensus-required provision) to derail or prevent changes that they obviously oppose, and in some cases to avoid discussing the substance of. I've tried to pull examples from the last 18 months of history at Talk:MEK, but there's certainly more to be found.

• Mhhossein: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
• Stefka Bulgaria: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].
• BarcrMac: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50].
• Idealigic: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].
• Alex-h: [60], [61].
• Vice regent: [62].

Many users have bludgeoned discussions

Several users have had a tendency to repeat the same points, the same sources, and the same proposed changes ad nauseum, and refused to drop the stick, to the point where they have driven away uninvolved contributors and/or forced through their preferred changes essentially by exhausting the opposition rather than reaching consensus. This has included, on several occasions, relitigating RfCs whose outcomes were disliked.

• Mhhossein: [63], [64].
• Vice regent: [65].
• Stefka Bulgaria: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71].
• Idealigic: [72] (multiple instances), [73] (multiple instances), [74] (multiple instances), [75], [76], [77], [78].

Past warnings, sanctions, and noticeboard discussions

Several users have had problematic histories in this area going back quite a while. These diffs and links are for instances where there was a clear finding of misconduct; many of these users have been frequent flyers at the admin noticeboards for years.

• Mhhossein was given a partial block (by me) from Ruhollah Khomeini and its talk page (see GS log)
• BarcrMac was given a TBAN from Iranian politics (see GS log)
• Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein were warned (with other parties) at ANI, here (I closed this discussion).
• Mhhossein warned (with other parties) at AN3, here.
• Mhhossein "encouraged to be less disruptive", here.
• Idealigic asked to be more collaborative, here.

Evidence presented by Mhhossein

Other users to be added

• @Bahar1397: should be added to the list. He has been actively involved since August 2020 and even started an RFC himself. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sock/meat puppetry

• Eostrix's comment is giving me the impression that there is an "anti-MEK" sock farm focusing on MEK page. With all due respect I think there is literally no such a thing here. I mean the well-organized sock farm of the pro-MEK users is something unique here. I am counting almost 14 pro-MEK users being blocked. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)A

Rebuttals

I will try to rebut the accusations against me here, as far as I can. For instance, there are dozens of unexplained diffs by Idealigic accusing me.

Personality cult

– To make it brief, one can refer to this important discussion. I would specifically mention Vanamonde's clear-cut comment stressing the importance of the academic sources regarding the cult aspects of the group. I and Vice Regent tried to clarify this important note more (see [79] for instance). But the discussion is stonewalled.

– Among Idealigic's diffs against me are an RFC for a short content, some talk page comments [80][81], and etc, used for accusing me of trying to "flood" the page with cult contents. I hope the diffs are noted more carefully by the clerks. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

– As I said before, I supported adopting a descriptive tone when describing contents related to Personality cult. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde's evidences

Thanks for Vanamonde's time. I am being described as Number 1 in all his lists and he has brought an evidence form 2016 (but his 2021 Tban warning to Idealigic is missing). Anyway:

– I did never intend to make things personal and am very sorry if I have made a wrong impression. The persons behind the accounts mattered to me. For instance, I just wished them safety&health amid the COVID19 pandemic [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] (this included Vanamonde).

– I put a lot on consensus building (like [87]). I even asked Vanamonde for guidance on how to handle the TP discussions and acknowledged his valuable works despite the RL issues.

– I politely asked the users not to ping the admins for every single issue and instead try to work for consensus [88], [89], [90].

– I tried to work for the page stability

– Stefka Bulgaria narrowly escaped a block [91] and was warned against "tendentious editing" and filibustering [92].

– Vanamonde's cautions to Stefka Bulgaria [93][94]. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

– I was accused of siding with IPs here. I think this is the same casting aspersion done by Idealigic that I politely asked to be avoided. In that discussion, I just stressed over the importance of expressing substantiated objection. These accusations are not unprecedented. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

RFCs and 3RD

Super-trim RFCs

-Adding to what Vice Regent said regarding the RFCs, there was a trend of launching super-trim RFCs aimed at "railroading"[95] the opposing side. This made El_C suggest the idea of having an "outright requirement" for Stefka Bulgaria to avoid super-trim RFCs (he was "instructed" to avoid it). "New restriction proposal" suggested by me, contains the context to the discussion over those RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

- 3RD opinions was ignored by Stefka Bulgaria and others. He did not pay attention to the 3rd opinion by Fences&Windows (courtesy ping), who asked Stefka Bulgaria to avoid "own interpretations that contradict what the sources say". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

– Stefka Bulgaria's proposal is described by a 3RD as "a textbook violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE". --Mhhossein ^talk 08:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, filibustering and stonewalling

I guess these are perhaps of the most obvious issues observed in MEK-related discussions. You are hopeful to build consensus, but comes a huge wall of text and filibustering against your hope. Here are some instances.

• Text walls that are sometimes repeated over and over in one discussion:

– Text wall appears–text wall is repeated by Stefka Bulgaria in the same discussion– I ask him not to bludgeon the process – the same text wall is repeated in that discussion again, followed by my comment reminding him of his repeated bludgeoning.

– Stefka Bulgaria comments on talk page. I report him. Stefka Bulgaria repeats the same comment almost verbatim.

– Large text walls by Stefka Bulgaria when they are not necessary : [96], [97], [98]– Specifically, this text wall is certainly detrimental to consensus building.

– Stefka Bulgaria makes a comment and repeats it almost verbatim.

– Stefka Bulgaria bludgeoning a closure review appeal by providing a large full quote from another user when it is not necessary. That could simply be replaced by a diff.

– MA Javadi makes a large comment and the comment is repeated by Idealigic here.

– Idealigic's text wall [99],

– Were these long full quotes by Idealigic necessary in a closure appeal discussion at AN? I really don't think so.

– Idealigic's stonewalling (please follow the comments here). Briefly, Vanamonde verified my sources but Idealigic still argued "Operation Sunshine", "Operation Shinning sun" and "Operation bright sun" were not the same and I explained they are. Idealigic still argues it is original research to say they are the same! After I took the issue to OR noticebaord, Idealigic was not satisfied yet, after one month, and asked for making attribution – which was not necessary. After admin intervention, he was forced to remove the attributions.

– Idealigic's stonewalling mentioned by Vanamonde.

• – Perhaps I reported the first filibustering by Stefka Bulgaria where El_C replied "Consensus here will not be arrived at by filibuster" and "exhausting opposing participants through filibuster and repetition isn't the way to compromise".

– On another occasion, Stefka Bulgaria was warned by an un-involved admin against "filibustering".

• Repeated using of "Iran is running propaganda" and misinformation campaign as an argument by Stefka Bulgaria [100],[101],[102],[103] – which was condemned by me multiple times. Vanamomde also condemned this by saying "the mere existence of propaganda does not obviate other sources provided above" [104] and "I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism" [105]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Misconducts

– Stefka Bulgaria even hounded me to my RFA request at the Wikimedia Commons and harassed me. – A fresh personal attack by Stefka Bulgaria [106] saying I am "good at deflecting and ...". There are still more personal attacks by Stefka Bulgaria [107][108]–I ask him not to.

– Stefka Bulgaria accused me of POV pushing multiple times[109][110][111], despite my request to avoid it (like [112]).

– Personal attacks by MA Javadi, BarcrMac,

– Casting aspersions by Stefka Bulgaria here and here on this board. – Casting aspersions by Idealigic who accused me of having COI with some unknown IPs.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

– JzG describes Stefka Bulgaria's edit warring and use of unreliable sources.

– TheTimesAreChanging suggests sanction for Stefka Bulgaria for "edit warring using FRINGE and self-published sources to paint a rosy picture of the MeK that cannot be found in the academic literature".

CRP violation

Despite the fact Idealigic accused others of this, he violated the CRP. Please note the following carefully:

• Idealigic violated the CRP restriction at least two times with the first one explained here.
• Another most recent CRP violation by Idealigic is briefly explained here. To show my good faith, I asked for self revert multiple times ([113], [114], [115], [116] and [117]) but Idealigic did not revert. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Stability matters to me

I really tried to help with the improvement of the encyclopedia during the past years. I created a dozens of pages, contributed to AFD and created some handful of DYKs (barnstar by the 25th). I sometimes helped with the OTD (Courtesy ping: @Howcheng:). I would describe myself a content creator and love editing. Though I am sure that I had not been a perfect user.

As for the MEK page, on my part I devoted time to talkpage discussions and tried to build consensus among the involved users. I addressed multiple series of unilateral mass edits (For instance see my 5th round of reviews-It was followed by the 6th round!). At last long, a very helpful restriction, i.e. CRP, was implemented after I complained about the edit war waves (see this). I had always been the supporter of the page stability, and I am keeping this idea until now (see latest comment where I say "stability matters").

Moreover, it was me who expressed the need El_C's presence (courtesy ping). See edit summary saying "@El_C: the article needs you (AFAIK, Stefka Bulgaria and other editors did not seek admins help with monitoring the page). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Vice regent

CPUSH at cult

I use the cult dispute to illustrate WP:CPUSH tactics by Bahar1397, Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac, Nika2020, Alex-h, MA Javadi, Idealigic, Ypatch, giving diffs, context, and the policy/guideline they violate (where applicable).

Since November 2020, the dispute is about content of cult section: Stefka's version (per his RfC) vs my proposal. As pointed out my version (supported by Mhhossein) is shorter than Stefka's version, thus Mhhossein is not "flooding" these claims. Vanamonde called my version "a step in the right direction."

Stefka version presents no-children-in-Camp-Ashraf as the main reason MEK is considered a cult (sourced to a single non-scholarly source, Japan Post). But scholarly sources give many reasons, mainly focusing on the personality aspects (these scholarly sources, and these:[118], [119]). This distortion was pointed out 5 times([120][121][122][123][124]) but there was no response (3.8 in WP:STONEWALLING). Stefka refused to respond, citing bludgeoning (3.3 in WP:STONEWALLING). This is WP:WHITEWASHING because it elevates a poorly sourced straw-man argument (Idealigic argued no-children-rule was "safer" for children) over scholarly sourced, more incriminating reasons MEK is considered a cult. Stefka's version's second sentence contains redundancies. Filling up space with straw-man and redundancies is WP:GAMING way of implementing L235's point#2 in a previous closure which mandated space for pro-cult views.

The discussion on adopting my version (arbs please read it) was stonewalled.

Other WP:CPUSH on cult discussion alone:

• Bahar[125], MAJavadi[126] offered to give an alternative version, but didn't. This is an example of 3.13 in WP:STONEWALLING.
• I pointed out that Stefka version was poorly written[127], Stefka's response was whataboutism. Stefka's Trump whataboutisms[128][129][130] derailed this cult discussion.
• Stefka accused me of WP:CHERRYPICKING sources, but when I asked which sources I missed, he declined to answer "that's the last I'll say here". (WP:ASPERSIONS)
• A logical fallacy is made that cult allegations come from Iran, hence should be dismissed. This is fallacious because (1) Western academic sources also say this (pointed out [131][132]), (2) sources merely say that Iran alleges MEK is a cult, not whether it's false (pointed out [133]). This fallacy was made by Stefka here (my rebuttal) and here; Ypatch[134]; Bahar1397[135]; Barca[136].
  • Vanamonde said: I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism. (WP:stonewalling)
• Barca rebutted scholarly sources with WP:QUESTIONABLE sources (e.g "unnamed US general"); Nika rebutted scholarly sources with Rudy Guiliani. Their sources analyzed as problematic.
  • Vanamonde stated as sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor.
  • Even after Vanamonde's statement, Barca posted less reliable sources as WP:WALLSOFTEXT.
• Stefka said no source designates MEK as a cult, although I had provided 15 academic sources describing MEK as a cult (WP:IDHT)
  • TheTimesAreAChanging argued Stefka's version was WP:FALSEBALANCE because academic sources favored one view. Stefka said nothing about the the academic sources and defended his version solely based on past consensus. (3.17 of WP:STONEWALL)
• WP:GASLIGHT: I provided academic sources in an RFC, but my evidence was moved out of the RFC thrice by MA Javadi[137][138], Bahar[139] as "does not address the RFC". In the end, the closer specifically cited "sources presented below" so my evidence was relevant. Vanamonde agreed they shouldn't modify my comments.
• WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: Stefka says "the MEK is a cult" is basically turning the article into an attack platform against a legitimate political group. Stefka[140], Idealigic[141], Alex-h[142] repeatedly imply that MEK can't be a cult because it's, in their view, "democratic".

BATTLEGROUND RfCs

Below are 5 examples of RfCs that each follow this template:

• A: a pro-MEK proposal is made
• B: many users support this proposal
• C: admin determines the proposal violates policy

So why do users support proposals that violate policy? They might not read RfCs carefully before voting and seem to vote along WP:BATTLEGROUND lines.

• 1. Stefka proposed an RfC on cult-claims. 8 users voted "Yes"([143][144][145][146]etc). But I couldn't verify Stefka's source so I ask twice[147][148]. Eventually L235 invalidated the RfC because Stefka's proposal misrepresented source, something that "alarmed" him.
  • We can WP:AGF that Stefka made a mistake, but why did 8 users support it? Did they check the source? Alex-h voted in favor but admitted he didn't read the source.
• 2.Stefka proposed an RfC removing from the lead a sentence mentioning (#1) the 1983 MEK-Iraq alliance, and (#2) MEK's unpopularity in Iran due to siding with Iraq. During RfC, 19 reliable sources were provided for #2 and 7 sources provided([149][150][151][152][153]) for #1. Despite this, 12 users supported removing this mention entirely([154][155][156][157]etc).
  • In post-RfC discussion, Vanamonde said the lead should contain #1 and #2 because "It's patently obvious, based on most of the sources presented in this section, that the alliance between the MEK and Iraq being initiated in 1983 was a significant point in the MEK's history. It's also clear, again based on these sources, that the MEK's alliance with Iraq during the war was what led to it's decline in support." Admin Fences and windows examined the sources and reached similar conclusion[158][159].
• 3. Bahar proposed an RfC to frame cult as merely a perception ("proposal A"). I provided 15 scholarly sources that disagreed with this framing.
  • 10 supported proposal A vs 7 opposes, but Vanamonde closed the RfC as "consensus against proposal A" because "sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor".
• 4. Stefka started an RfC, and initially proposed "other sources have dismissed these claims." I pointed out the sources said no such thing. Stefka didn't acknowledge his mistake. Then Vanamonde93 told Stefka twice [160][161] about the misquotation before Stefka fixed his mistake.
  • But before Stefka fixed his mistake 3 users ([162][163][164]) had voted "Yes" to Stefka's incorrect text. Did they verify Stefka's sources before voting?
• 5. Stefka proposed an RfC to remove content from the article that wasn't in the article. 5 users supported removing this non-existent content, until I pointed out[165] and Stefka withdrew this RfC[166].
  • Stefka wrote in bold at the very top the RfC was withdrawn but after that @HistoryofIran: voted "Yes: Per Stefka." It appears HistoryofIran didn't read the RfC, nor the comment of the user (Stefka) he was citing. HistoryofIran often votes at MEK RfCs without explanation[167][168][169][170] and defends unexplained voting.

Responses

To Also_problem_with_multiple_new_accounts_and_IPs

Stefka cast aspersions at WP:AN on Shiasun and Maqdisi117 , where Ivanvector saw no disruption. Stefka then filed SPI against Mhhossein and Maqdisi117, which El_C and Sir Sputnik found unconvincing. Jushysaha604 was created in 2014, but didn't edit MEK until 2020 - that's long for an alleged sleeper.

I didn't defend Kazemita's IPs, arbs should carefully read Stefka's links. I assisted in Ghazaalch's unblocking, where Mz7 and Blablubbs agreed and thanked me.

To WP:PUSH_by_Vice_regent_(with_no_regard_to_article's_WP:CRP_restrictions)

It's not clear who violated CRP, the edits were complicated, so I sought clarification. My first alleged violation came after a month of no objection, so I assumed WP:SILENCE, as I explained here[171]. On June 30 I offered a compromise to Idealigic, and when he didn't respond (in hindsight I should've pinged him), I implemented it on July 10[172]. I've offered to apologize if I did violate CRP. Regarding WP:Silence and CRP see comment by Vanamonde (in different discussion).

CRP is used as a stonewalling tactic as explained here.

To Evidence_regarding_user:Vice_regent

• Bullet#1, mistake that I had quickly fixed
• Bullet#4, timestamps of diffs indicate opposite: first I presented sources, then Stefka raised SYNTH concerns, which I promptly addressed.
• Bullet#5, mistake I self-reverted within 5 minutes

About Mhhossein

It's easy to find diffs on Mhhossein; he's made 30% of edits at MEK talk, edited Iranian topics for 7 years, and dealt with difficult users. For example, Vanamonde evidence includes a 2016 warning in a discussion where Mhhossein dealt with an-oft blocked user who attacked him.

Mhhossein was followed to Wikimedia commons, where Stefka was the sole opposer of Mhhossein's adminship. Stefka and Mhhossein filed WP:SPIs against each other[173][174]. It can be difficult to WP:AGF after such experiences (as El_C pointed out), which can explain Mhhossein personalizing disputes.

Vanamonde justifiably blocked Mhhossein on Ruhollah Khomeini: Mhhossein had dismissed Stefka's academic sources because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yet when blocking, Vanamonde noted Mhhossein did "a lot of decent content work". El_C said Mhossein was an editor in good standing and vouched for his "integrity". Admin Howcheng said "a conscientious editor who is genuinely trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia." Mhossein also created a Good Article in post-1978 Iranian politics and is credited for numerous DYKs.

About Vice Regent

I've made efforts to reduce article size as Vanamonde asked. I started a discussion to reduce section sizes in accordance with WP:DUE. I made an effort to summarize the lead because it was too long. I've worked with Stefka to find mutually agreeable summaries to contentious content[175][176]. I've offered compromises[177][178], and accepted them. Chetsford, an admin I disagreed with at MEK, said I was "an outstanding editor".

Evidence presented by Idealigic

WP:PUSH by Mhhossein who constantly tries to expand a portrayal that the MEK is synonymous of a “cult”, even though this is already comprehensively covered in the article

Background:

• Allegations about how the MEK organizes itself (such as “romantic relationships”, “devotion to leadership”, or allegations of abuse against its members) are often described in sources as "cult-like" aspects of the MEK. The article was previously flooded with claims, allegations and quotes about this, and some of it was removed through a previous RFC.

• Still there are 3 sections in the article that cover these topics: "Cult of personality", "Human rights record", and "Ideological revolution and women's rights". The lead says “Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"”, and one of the sections says “Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult", "cult-like", or having a "cult of personality". In this post Stefka Bulgaria gives a rundown of cult-related material in the article.

WP:PUSH problem:

• Despite these topics already being comprehensively covered in the article, Mhhossein has (for years) tried flooding the article with more of this content: [179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190]
• When Stefka Bulgaria tried mentioning (once) that Khomeini (political rival of the MEK) also had a "cult of personality", Mhhossein stonewalled through their characteristic wikilawayering. In other words, Mhhossein tries to add as much "cult"-related material in the MEK article, but won't allow even a mention of this in an article about a political adversary. Idealigic (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PUSH by Mhhossein through source misuse

• Adding claims not supported by the sources or without sources: [191][192][193][194][195][196]suggested title not supported“Riots” not supported

• Removing statements from reliable sources (mainly by stonewalling): [197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207]

• Attempts to use unreliable or weak sources (often camouflage with reliable ones): theglobepostensani.iropednews and juancole“DIANE Publishing” and “The Libertarian Institute”“lobelog” and “C. Hurst & Company”theglobepostbreakingnews.symcclatchydcMiddle East Eyeblog.lefigaroNetjangmotherjonesMEK website against RSs. Idealigic (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PUSH from Mhhosssein through attempts to invalidate RfCs

Mhhossein attempts to invalidate RfCs on the article talk page: [208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218]

Mhhossein (et al.) complaining to moderators when RfC results doesn’t match their POV: [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228]. Idealigic (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PUSH by Vice regent (with no regard to article's WP:CRP restrictions)

Background:

VR has been edit warring (while making WP:CRP violations) to change the lead that the MEK are in conflict with Iran (but the MEK are in conflict with Iran's Islamic Republic, not with Iran).

Similarly VR has also been edit warring to replace the word “homeland” with “Iran” (the Islamic Republic chased the MEK out of Iran, but Iran is the MEK’s homeland as supported by sources).

There is also another matter where VR edit wars to change “Iraq” with “Saddam” (WP:PUSHing “Saddam” in the article is something Mhhossein seems to have also done in the past too [229][230]). VR does this even though he said before that the war was internationally known as the “Iran-Iraq” war [231][232] (but due to word restrictions in this report I will need to skip that for now unless requested).

WP:PUSH problem:

• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran” .[233]
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested, adds ​​”Iran's request”.[234]
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested”, adds “Iran's request”.[235]
• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran”.[236] (violates CRP restrictions)
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested”, adds “Iran.”[237]
• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran”.[238](violates CRP restrictions again)

VR argues that consensus for this edit is based on this comment (where they are asked to explain the change of terminology, but they never do). My view is that if VR had any doubts about consensus, he could have confirmed it with an admin or started a RFC, but instead he kept edit warring his POV into the lead. Then (together with Mhhossein), accused me and Stefka Bulgaria of violating the article’s CRP restrictions even though all we did was reinstate the longstanding version.[239][240]

References

WP:GAME by Vice regent and Mhhossein to remove from the lead that the MEK is the Islamic Republic’s “biggest and most active political opposition group”

• VR adds “verification-failed” tags to this sentence [241]

• I try to address VR’s “verification-failed” tags [242][243]

• Mhhossein moves content to the body [244]

• I sense their objective is just to remove this from the lead, so I reinstate the longstanding version. [245]

• VR reinstates the tags again [246] (CRP violation)

• I try to address VR’s tags a second time [247]

• VR moves this text to the body again [248]

Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PUSH by Ghazaalch

Adding Ghazaalch per Vanamonde.

• This page and this post by Ghazaalch rounds up what is happening in the MEK article.

• Mainly quoting the same source from a think tank (RAND report by Goulka), Ghazaalch has been trying to add the following items to the article:[249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265]

Then some IPs (who are very obviously not newcomers) edit war to add the same RAND report to the lead: [266] [267] [268] [269]

When I tried to report these CRP violations Mhhossein and VR started to defend the IPs. [270]

• Ghazaalch stonewalling to remove "lead too long" tag: [271] [272] [273] Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Response to Idealigic and CRP

@Red Phoenix: the norm in the article has become that when we cannot agree about an edit, we reinstate the longstanding version and discuss in the talk page: [274] [275] [276] [277][278] [279] [280]

I did not stonewall, VR kept saying the sources in the lead did not support the statement,[281][282] so I rewrote it twice.[283][284]

Also I’m not the only editor claiming CRP in the article:[285][286] Idealigic (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eostrix

As a general introduction, I am not involved in this topic but I have seen reports on administrator boards and SPI.

Sock puppetry has been an issue, from both sides

Sock puppetry has been an issue from parties on both sides of the dispute (I'm labelling as "pro-MEK" and "anti-MEK" for lack of a better term or familiarity in the topic).

anti-MEK:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi and the block of Saff V.. Besides the dispute on the main MEK page, Saff V. created articles such as Somayeh Mohammadi (former MEK) and MEK designation as terrorist organization.
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazemita1/Archive and the block of Kazemita1.

pro-MEK:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive, socking between 2017 and 2018.
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat: User:TheDreamBoat and User:Rondolinda, two users who have voted on MEK articles, share a pattern of activity in AfD. See also Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs at ANI

Evidence presented by MarioGom

Sockpuppetry is a persistent problem

As addenda to evidence presented by Eostrix (#Sock puppetry has been an issue, from both sides), sockpuppetry (and also COI editing) has been a recurrent problem back to 2005. I'd like to reiterate the list of SPIs linked by Eostrix, and add the following to the "pro-MEK camp":

• Hanifjazayeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a publicly and notorious NCRI (MEK front) spokeperson. And RezaKia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was very likely a sock [287] [288], see also consolidated contribs.
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AlborzTaha (2007-2009). Accounts in this group include: AlborzTaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tim Abbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tib72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mike Stamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Tullip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• LPW22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked on the BurritoSlayer SPI (note that this SPI contains multiple sockfarms, LPW22 is not related to the BurritoSlayer sockmaster itself, but probably related to one of the groups in Atlantic12 SPI, tag teaming with them to implement an RFC [289]).

Adding here in light of #About Mhhossein: I think Mhhossein's report at Atlantic12 SPI had merit (that is, there were and are good reasons for an investigation, regardless of the outcome), and it was just closed out of inactivity. This is something I notified ArbCom about already. BarcrMac SPI was more of a trainwreck, but that does not invalidate the Atlantic12 report. MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Stefka Bulgaria

Also problem with multiple new accounts and IPs

New IPs (such as these) have also been a problem in the page. The same with a group of new (and not so new) accounts that edit in tandem with some of the editors mentioned here. I will compile a list. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add the following accounts to this case: @Jushyosaha604:, @Maqdisi117:, @Shiasun:, and @KJS ml343x:

In this RFC, the closing admin says “By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed.” Mhhossein and VR (unsuccessfully) try to get the result overturned.[290][291] Then, on the next RFC,[292] the aforementioned four accounts (with very few edits at the time of their votes) show up to vote in favor of Mhhossein and VR. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The IPs were blocked as socks of Kazemita1 (an editor that also relentlessly sided with Mhhossein on the MEK page). Note Mhhossein and VR siding with the IPs edit on the article’s talk page.

When @Saff V.: and @Ghazaalch: were blocked for evidence that indicated sockpuppetry, Mhhossein and VR assisted in their unblocking.[293][294]

Before VR was active on the MEK page, another editor who also constantly sided with Mhhossein on the MEK page was user:Expectant of Light (also blocked for sockpuppetry).[295]. Mhhossein also tried to assist in their unblocking.[296] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also parties to dispute: Ali_Ahwazi [297] and Pahlevun[298] in Iranian politics post 1979. Will add evidence soon. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

My general assessment is pro-IRI pov pushing patterns in articles relating to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-present); with particular emphasis on the IRI's political opposition, People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK).

Evidence regarding user:Vice regent

VR has gone to great lengths to enforce a narrative that the IRI's political opposition (MEK) is a cult (despite source/content about this already being in the article); at times WP:SYNTHing information that isn't in the sources or using inadequate sources for pushing this narrative:

• In a RFC where I proposed shortening some of the cult text in the article, VR proposes "Members are forbidden from marrying and those already married were ordered to divorce (the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule)"; which is not supported by the sources. - [299]

• Here VR uses a source written by a former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, (which @Pahlevun: added to the article as authored by Eileen Barker) and this Vice article to add "The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive” to the article. - [300] In that same proposal VR offers this other source by Masoud Banisdar and this source by mcclatchydc.com to support adding this content to the article.

• Says “Its confusing to see the US gov call it a cult in one paragraph and then call it not a cult in another paragraph.”[301] then proposes only to include the parts calling the MEK a "cult| while omitting opposing other povs. - [302]. Also while proposing to reduce sourced content saying that "Iran's Ministry of Intelligence ran a disinformation operation against the MEK by deceiving Human Rights Watch into "publishing a report detailing alleged human rights abuses committed by MEK leadership against dissident members.” - [303]

• Here I respond to VR arguing that Masoud Rajavi’s alliance with Iraq in 1983 led to the MEK becoming unpopular in Iran; which is a SYNTH conclusion (Rajavi’s alliance with Iraq in 1983 had nothing to do with it losing popularity in Iran). Then VR argues that “many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented”; and while different sources support different parts of the content, none of the sources they presented support their SYNTH conclusion.

• Removes sourced content that supports that the IRI “shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution”. - [304]

• Adds “Post-war Saddam era” as a section tittle in a section that only mentions “Saddam” once,[305] contradicting his own statement that "The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.”. - [306]

• Mixes RSs with non-RSs to try to get a RFC overturned. - [307][308]

Aspersions:

• "One has even admitted to not reading the RfC before he supports Stefka.” - [309] (not true).

• Accuses Idealigic of CRP violation, when it was them who made that violation. - [310]

• ”And the fact that folks are blindly voting on a withdrawn RfC is telling…” - [311]

Evidence regarding user:Mhhossein

• Uses IRI regime-controlled press (generally not considered RS for political topics as it has published conspiracies such as Holocoust denialism) as RSs for IRI whitewashing - [312][313][314][315][316][317][318]

• Prevents RSs from being added when the content is critical of the IRI - [319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327]

• Efforts to label the MEK (political opposition to the IRI) a “cult”, despite this already being in the article (I think enough diffs were already provided by Idealigic about this).

• WP:Battleground as a debating tool - [328][329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336] (some of these taken from Statement by Idealigic @ Preliminary statements; there are more links there though).

Stonewalling:

• Mhhossein constantly stonewalls by saying “no to mass removal, yes to case by case investigation”, but then when case by case investigation is offered, he still objects any changes. When asked to offer a change himself, he doesn’t. - [337] (even with editors agreeing that the article’s size needs reducing - [338])

• Says "It's by pretended these are for following a so-called "summary style", which is not right. Vanamonde never supported such a bogus style" - [339], but that’s not true.[340]

• Uses MEK website as source to argue "found some more interesting clues supporting my position" : - [341]. But when RSs are presented to explain the MEK's current ideology, Mhhossein says “It's not important what they think "nowadays": - [342]

• Long-term WP:NOTGETTINGIT: [343][344][345]

[Note: user:Saff V., user:Kazemita1, and user:Expectant of Light (and their socks) have relentlessly sided with Mhhossein throughout Post-1978 Iranian politics. - [346][347][348][349][350][351][352][353] etc., all these editors making numerous failed reports against me, just as VR has recently suggested].

Marxism and the MEK

• While the MEK and Peykar are two opposing groups resulting from a schism of the MEK in the 1970s, and Peykar leader Taghi Shahram admitted to killing of Americans while he led Peykar,[354] Vice regent adds to this article that “assassination has been linked to the MEK or the MEK-affiliated Peykar.” - [355]

• Ali Ahwazi supports the creation of a “Marxism” section title (even though Marxism has been the core ideology of the “Marxist MEK” (Peykar) since the 1970s (while Islam has been the core ideology of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran). - [356]

• Mhhossein saying photo of Taghi Shahram (Peykar leader) was removed from the MEK page based on “self-interpretations”. - [357]

• Mhhossein supporting Ali Ahwazi’s proposal of creating a “Marxism” section title while arguing it’s not important what the MEK thinks nowadays. - [358]

Evidence regarding user:Ali Ahwazi

• Ali Ahwazi uses IRI-mouthpieces to spread IRI PR throughout Wikipedia: - [359][360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368][369][370][371][372]
• This is the same pattern that Saff V. (and their socks) have also been doing in the same articles - [373][374][375][376][377](see for example, User:Badoomtalkh - Saff V.’s sockpuppet - and Ali Ahwazi editing page “COVIran Barekat” mainly using IRI-affiliated sources: - [378][379][380][381])

[Note that the diffs above are merely meant to outline behavior patterns, and not to suggest that the IRI government aren't entitled to have their information presented in Wikipedia.]

• Presents TheGlobePost and this Al-Monitor source against academic sources to argue that the lead of the article should say that the MEK targeted Iranian civilians. - [382]

• Like editors and socks mentioned here, Ali Ahwazi is also adamant in pushing a "MEK = Cult" narrative in the MEK article (despite this already being covered in the article): - [383]

Evidence regarding user:Pahlevun

• In 2019 I reported Pahlevun for blanket removals of sourced content in articles regarding IRI political oppositions.[384]

• In the article Organization of Iranian American Communities, Pahlevun SYNTHs: “The Intercept describes OIAC as an "opaque network" which is used by the MEK to lobby the United States Congress”[385] (which is not supported by the source). When asked about it, also SYNTHs content in their response. - [386]

• Pahlevun is also adamant in pushing a "MEK = Cult" narrative in the MEK article (despite this already being covered in the article): - [387]

Rebuttals

• Some editors mentioned here tend to be "really good at deflecting and providing personal opinion and not addressing issues directly". Diffs and sources in this case will need to be examined with care to accurately assess what's what. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

About Stefka Bulgaria

On the MEK page, Mhhossein has tried to add things like a photo titled "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York City" (here is the talk page discussion about that), an (WP:OR) section title "Anti-American campaign", or a statement in the lede saying the MEK are "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")". Since those days I have removed/corrected a ton of incorrect information from some of these Iran-related articles.

In the talk pages, I often stopped responding to discussions because Mhhossein / VR / Ghazaalch are the type of editors who seem to want to get the last word, so sometimes I could not be bothered to "discuss and discuss and discuss". But maybe that was the wrong thing to do; I just wanted the bludgeoning to stop (I think I left a disclaimer about this in all RfCs for the last couple of years [388][389]etc.)

Evidence presented by Ghazaalch

It is not a long time that I am editing MEK page, but am frustrated with the process carried out by MEK's supporters to prevent others from editing, and implement their own changes. They have reverted nearly all edits I made in this article. They can revert you but you cannot undid the revert before obtaining consensus on the talk page. But how are we supposed to obtain the consensus? Using reliable sources? They could easily call the sources IRI's propaganda. They say for example: The reasons some critics call the MEK a cult are varied and wide, including the government in Iran paying substantial amounts of money to characterize the MEK as a cult[390]. Then if you ask: Can you name some scholarly sources which deny that MEK is a cult?; (since VR had already presented 15 scholarly sources that supported my view), they won't give you an straight answer. Afterwards Vanamonde objected: I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism[391] Thus, when they failed to prove their claim, they said The sections (such as the lead) need to be shortened.[392], meaning you cannot add anything to the article. Thus "Need to be shortened" was another pretext that let them not only revert the new-added contents that they did not like, but also trimmed the old contents that were against MeK. They even aimed at deleting the section headings that were calling MeK a cult, or the sections that were listing MeK's assassinations. But since they couldn't build the consensus based on reliable sources, started to implement their changes through sneaky tactics. To omit the "Assassinations" heading, for example, they started to move the content of the section to other sections to empty the section and could delete the heading. But moving the content also needed consensus. So they applied another tactic. First they tried to repeat the content that they wanted to omit, in other sections, then started to omit the original information on the pretext that they were shortening the article by deleting repeated information. Then I reverted them and warned them; which probably made them think they should get rid of myself first. They reported me as a suspected sockpuppet based on some so-called evidences which were so trivial that I did not feel the need to defend myself. (I explained the defeated accusation in the following section). So this was just an example which shows that when they (pro-MEKs) fail to prove themselves based on reliable sources, do everything to reach their goal. Their last resort, in my example, as always, is to start an RFC. And why not? They have enough People around them to vote. And that is why the RFCs are so frequent in this talk page. During one of these voting projects I wrote "I support Wikipedia vs. Votepedia"; and now I repeat it again: I support Wikipedia (based on reliable sources) against Votepedia (Voting on pushing away these sources).Ghazaalch (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Response to Stefka Bulgaria's sock allegations and Idealigic's PUSH allegiance

Funny things are going on here. As I pointed out here, those who edit "MEK" are two sides. "Pro-MEKs" and "anti-MEKs". Pro-MEKs are siding each other because they have the same view, and anti-MEKs are siding each other for the same reason. But some People use this obvious point as evidences against their opponents; and the funny thing is that they are successful sometimes; because the admins reviewing the cases, (sometimes) do not have the time to go through the evidences thoroughly. An example of which could be testified by Vanamonde who was present there too. The evidences presented there were so trivial that I even did not feel the need to defend myself. But all of the sudden I was blocked. Then VR helped the admins to see the situation, so they unblocked me soon and apologized. But the thing that is even more funny is that they (pro-Meks) use these defeated accusations (see also [393]) as evidences and present them here to use them against us. This is because they do not get punished for violating WP:AGF. Even when it becomes obvious that their accusations were false, instead of apologizing, they accuse those who help expose the falsity of their accusations.

For another example of funny things going on here see [394], where a pro-Mek user (Stefka Bulgaria) is introducing Rand Report as an academic source and use it four times (in one edit) to prove himself, but when I used the same source to prove that he is wrong, he simply called the source think tank(unreliable). There are many examples of this kind but I do not want to present them all. I am just asking admins who are reviewing these cases to read carefully the links they (pro-Meks) are presenting as evidences. Many thanks. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Red Phoenix

"Civil POV pushing" includes slights and accusations

Original version of this section is here. Revised 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC) with expansion permitted. I've also chosen to rephrase the word "microaggressions" because, contrary to my previous understanding of the term, our article on microaggression defines the term as "toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups". That specific definition was not what was intended when I wrote this section, and I meant it in such a way as editors are slighting one another in a manner consistent with civil POV pushing. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

Since I provided a comment that recommended all parties involved have their conduct examined, I wanted to show what I saw in my review. There are a number of slights and accusations that indicate less than collegial conduct. The following are quotes I picked out from Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran, version revision 1035510965, and in bold I have placed the section header under which the comment may be found.

Removal of scholarly source

Idealigic: ”We can also include the other sources that you and Mhhossein have been stonewalling from being included”

• This comes out of nowhere in the middle of the thread in a reply to Vice regent, where Idealigic is providing quotes from sources, and nowhere in said thread is there any mention of Vice regent or Mhhossein removing the source; in fact, it’s a thread about Idealigic removing a source. Why mention stonewalling and calling out two editors here?

Admin assistance needed

Idealigic: “This is a CRP violation, and Mhhossein is supporting it. All regards for policies seem to be going out the window in this article”

• In this example, Idealigic had posted a request for a revert of an IP’s edit, claiming CRP and that he did not want to violate it himself, and Mhhossein had just replied defending the IP. This was the third post, not even making any comment to Mhhossein's counterargument. I read this as a release of frustration by Idealigic, calling out Mhhossein specifically. That's pretty quick to make such a leap and a callout.

Mhhossein: “I am against CRP violation and I have reported Idealigic for this. As for the IP's edit, before any revert, there should be substantiated objection from Idealigic which is missing here. [...] The materials being supported by this edit are falsely challenged by Idealigic et al. So, addition of a citation is quite OK.”

• Mhhossein wrote his report here, on the article's talk page. The thing is, this section is about Idealigic requesting a revert for an IP editor's CRP violation. Instead, Mhhossein in this thread throws out that they are reporting Idealigic for a CRP violation, which wasn't even discussed here - arguing that Idealigic needs to rationalize their objection is not the same as accusing them of a CRP violation in a thread about a separate issue.

Idealigic: “@Mhhossein: this is clearly a CRP violation which you won't stop defending it. Do you have a COI with this IP? It gives that impression.”

• The context of said thread doesn’t suggest that a COI exists, only that a disagreement does, whether or not Mhhossein was supporting what could have been a CRP violation by an IP user. Suggesting someone has a COI is a pretty serious matter; Idealigic cast an aspersion based on their continued disagreement with Mhhossein.

Request for comment

Vice regent: “Idealigic opposed removing #1 from the lead by citing a single non-scholarly source. By contrast #2 is supported by dozens of reliable sources. Mhhossein provided 20 reliable sources [...] that say Iranians viewed MEK's actions as treason. View #2 is way more prevalent in scholarly sources yet Idealigic wishes to remove it. View #1 is hardly mentioned in scholarly sources yet Idealigic tries to keep it in the first paragraph of the lead. This is a strong violation of WP:DUE. It is obvious that this is WP:POVPUSHing.”

Idealigic: “This analysis by VR is original research... So the more neutral version is WP:DUE, and it is in fact VR and Mhhossein who are WP:POVPUSHing”

• This example of both quotes is WP:SEALION. Accusations of POV pushing and original research analysis consistent with behaviors in the essay, to the point that Vice regent and Idealigic directly back-and-forth accused each other of POV pushing.

This is only a small sample of the most recent examples.

Idealigic and CRP

I'm a little concerned from both the talk page and the edit summaries of People's Mujahedin of Iran that Idealigic is the only editor claiming WP:CRP as justification for his actions. Here are some diffs where I find the edit summaries concerning:

• [395] 8 June, Claims a CRP violation by Vice regent
• [396] 14 June, revert to "longstanding"
• [397] 30 June, revert to "longstanding"
• [398] 2 July, States outright making an edit to please Vice regent and Mhhossein
• [399] 6 July, calls out Mhhossein for moving information around in edit summary
• [400] 10 July, claims Vice regent violated CRP
• [401] 16 July, accuses Vice regent of GAME in an edit summary, "restoring longstanding version"
• [402] 23 July, claims to be "restoring longstanding" based on cherrypicking and WP:CITEKILL. Was reverted by an IP user, then Idealigic reverted that, then another IP user reverted again and Idealigic has not edited the article since.

My main concern here is that being the only editor claiming CRP, and doing it so frequently, suggests that Idealigic may be using CRP as a WP:BLUDGEON to retain their preferred version, especially given their microaggressions in the talk page, as presented above. I make no claim on whether or not it is happening, only that it is worth investigating based on the pattern. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Adoring Nanny

Response to Vice Regent

The thrust of the RfC in question[403] was whether or not six paragraphs on the "cult" issue should be summarized to a single paragraph. As MEK is primarily a political group, not a religious one, I felt this was a good idea, and responded along those lines. To the extent that the wording had room for improvement, I'm glad this was done. However, Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT, and I still feel that summarizing the material in question was an improvement. For example, in an article about an organization of MEK's size and scope, the bit about $80,000 was clearly excessive. Perhaps, rather than supporting the exact wording in question, it could have made more sense to support the idea that the material needed to be shortened? Perhaps. I'm imperfect too. But this was a second RfC on the issue, and a concrete wording was needed in order to move forward. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.