Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:55, 21 August 2021

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility and Truth

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end: Walls of text

In cases where the Arbitration Committee has difficulty in determining fault for disruptive editing due to walls of text posted by civil POV pushers, the Committee may conclude that the verbosity of the posts has itself been disruptive, and may impose sanctions on the responsible editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

(Not having read the principles above this) On the one hand yes, it is true that walls of text can be an issue in and of themselves. On the otherhand, ArbCom is charged with going to gain an understanding of an issue that the community cannot be expected to do. It's limited somewhat by diff and word count limits but it remains on obligation of ArbCom's, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Barkeep here. I think walls of text is more an issue in community processes, but frankly when it comes to ArbCom it's more a detriment to someone's argumentation rather than a strength (especially since at a practical level it means less evidence can fit.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We need this in response to the correct observation that the excessive quantity of verbiage on talk pages makes it difficult to assess fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Barkeep49

Proposed findings of fact

Scope of disruption

1) The scope of disruption is ~~People's Mujahedin of Iran~~ MEK, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am beginning my thorough examination of the evidence. While not complete it is not clear to me that this issue really extends to all post-1978 Iranian politics. So I put this here for reaction. Is this the right scope? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: (and others) is the changed statement accurate to your knowledge? I want to make sure I understand the scope - and if there is disruption outside MEK to give time for evidence to be presented of such - because that will impact what kind of remedies are appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: one reason I posted my question when I did was to try to allow time for people to present evidence that show wider disruption. I hope you are able to find some time in the next few days before that phase closes to show some diffs of similar issues elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: the fact that MEK is a DAB is something I noticed as well and why I originally listed People's Mujahedin. I'm guessing in the end we'll do something like [[People's Mujahedin of Iran|MEK]] when referring to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The scope really is the MEK, primarily on the People's Mujahedin of Iran page, as attested by the large amount of presented diffs in evidence. Over the years, there has been some spillover to MEK-related pages like Maryam Rajavi [1] [2], National Council of Resistance of Iran, or National Iranian American Council (MEK opponents), to name a few, but the scale of disruption elsewhere is not even close to the People's Mujahedin of Iran page. MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: yes, I think so. The outcome would need to be prepared for foreseeable spillover to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran (no edit warring since 2019 though), Assassination and terrorism in Iran § Attacks by Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or an hypothetical History of People's Mujahedin of Iran. MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: (and others), I think the scope of the matter expands to topics surrounding the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-present). Articles include IRI-affiliated institutions, protests in Iran, government figures, political oppositions, etc. There are a lot of diffs to go through, but I’ll try my best to compile a concise and clear report soon. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to expand the scope, we might as well also include Talk:Religion in Iran, where there was a lot of debate on whether Iran is a Muslim-majority country (here and here) and edit-warring over how much weight to give alternative theories[3][4].VR _talk 01:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've confined my evidence largely to the MEK, because that's where the disruption has been most evident. There have been equally nasty exchanges on numerous other pages; those have just not last as long. The ones I'm aware of include Ruhollah Khomeini; Maryam Rajavi; Women's rights in Iran; Hafte tir bombing; Qasem Soleimani; 2017–2018 Iranian protests; and a few others. I could if necessary try to present some evidence. We're focused on the MEK because that's where the conflict between this particular set of editors has been focused, not because the issues in the broader topic are confined to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I've just read through the October–December 2020 discussions at Talk:Religion in Iran VR linked to above, and the WP:CPUSH issues there were pretty incredible. Basically, a fringe source called GAMAAN claims, contra the grand ensemble of reliable sources, that only one-third of Iranians are Shia Muslims (all RS put it at 90%+), yet several experienced and well-respected editors insist on defending its reliability. When confronted with the fact that GAMAAN flatly contradicts some of the most widely cited sources in the field, e.g. Pew Research Center, one of them reacts by ... questioning the reliability of the latter, and demanding at length that its reliability be proven! Sure, it can all be read as good-faith incompetence, but it would be strictly impossible without some pretty strenuous POVs steering things in the background. Yes, they are different editors, but the root cause is the same: strong opinions on Iranian politics. This definitely seems like a little brother or sister to American politics, and should probably be treated that way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEK is a DAB page, and some sort of qualification is needed in the proposed wording. To me and probably other chemists also, the best-known meaning of MEK is methyl ethyl ketone. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's mostly a matter of convinicnece as well as it being shorthand that I've been accustomed to (pre-wiki). Like when I use Shabak (DAB page) for the Shin Bet or Aman (DAB page) for Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel), and so on. El_C 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Vice regent

Proposed principles

Scholarly sources preferred

1) Scholarly sources should be given more weight than news articles. The following are some examples of indication of scholarship: publication by a reputable university press, publication in a reputable and peer-review journal, a high number of citations, etc. When in doubt, the degree of reliability of a source should be determined at WP:RSN (to get the community's attention).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Vice regent: That would be a great improvement but still needs to be discussed more. I was just thinking of how age can be significant here. Should the new sources be preferred over the new ones when both are of similar qualities? I guess fresh sources are most likely more accurate but this can simply be objected by those who say old sources have the advantage of containing the initial accounts –even though those accounts later turn out to be false/inaccurate. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph at WP:AGE MATTERS gives some pros and cons of both old and new historical sources. But I don't want this principle to be overcomplicated. Had we applied this principal months/years ago at Talk:MEK, a lot of drama could have been avoided.VR _talk 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Weight should be determined by broad overview sources

2) When trying to determine weight given to a particular section (or subtopic) in the article, a useful indicator is to consider the weight given to this in reliable sources that give a broad overview of the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also see this previous discussion and NPOVN discussion. Determining how many words to allot a particular section in the article has been a thorny issue. My proposal is based on previous comments by Someguy1221 [5] and Vanamonde93. Anyone: if you feel this is not a good proposal please offer alternative suggestions.VR _talk 16:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question that I've struggled with on other topics. This comment by L235 at MEK talk page:

The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE).

The way I interpreted the comment is that we use reliable secondary sources to establish upper and lower limits of what the length should be (as a percentage of article size) and within those limits the section length is an editorial decision. But how exactly do we analyze secondary sources to determine the upper and lower limits?VR _talk 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't know if this is a principle ARBCOM will be willing to pass, given that it's verging on a purely content matter. However, as a general principle for editing, I think this is crucial, and I believe I have said as much on Talk:MEK. For large and contentious topics with a variety of source material discussing specific aspects in great detail, it's common for several problems to crop up; violations of NOTNEWS, excessive detail on controversy, excessive detail about the best-known aspects, and perhaps most crucially, editors trying to shape the article based on what they think they know, rather than what the sources say. That last is a common problem even at venues like FAC, so it's unsurprising that we see it here; but it's still something we've to deal with. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Scholarly source restriction

1) A sanction is created such that, in whichever discussion this sanction is applied, only scholarly sources may be used in that discussion. Arbs authorize admins to apply this restriction, at the admins' discretion, in WP:DSTOPICS (esp at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Arbs previously considered a source restriction applied by Valereee to be reasonable here.VR _talk 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FWIW, I imposed that restriction because we had editors who were denying current scholarship and supporting their assertions with in some cases primary sources that were 70+ years old, and editors at that article were at their wits' end, and it was the best I could come up with at the time to stop that disruption. I think this kind of restriction could be useful but would need to be carefully crafted -- for instance, to require scholarly sources for any assertion/about a period for which there were ample scholarly sources. For recent developments there may not be scholarly sources yet.

I feel like this solution should be used rarely, in order to protect administrators and well-intentioned editors who are nearing their wits' end. This seems like such a case. —valereee (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs to be closed solely on strength of arguments

2) A sanction is created such that, on the page it is applied, the RfCs on that page must be closed solely on strength of arguments (considering policy, any possible logical fallacy, quality of sources etc). The closer should disregard head counting. The sanction may also state that a closer should read the sources for themselves, if said sources are important to the RfC question and a participant has alleged misquoting.

Head counting can be generally useful in closing discussions, especially on matters that are normally left to editorial judgement. But in some articles, where everyone agrees that head counts are being WP:GAMEd, this proposed sanction may be necessary, as determined by either by arbcom or an admin at their discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is an interesting idea but I'm a bit dubious about how it'd work in practice. How would this work? Would RfCs be merely advisory to the closer? This would be a pretty fundamental shift. What would be grounds for challenging the closure at AN? Wouldn't this merely shift the problem to challenges of the closes? And, can we reasonably say that after closing an RfC like this, the closer will still be uninvolved for future disputes? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The problem of RfCs being manipulated by puppets is obvious (Stefka, Mhhossein, MarioGom, Eostrix, myself all have implied it). Obvious solutions have not worked:

500/30 is WP:GAMEd. Eg. See what TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda (both who vote at MEK RfCs[6][7]) did: Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs.
Puppetry can take long to detect (if at all). Eg. User:Saff V. (eventually determined to be a sock) was active at Talk:MEK for more than a year. He was not detected by this checkuser. User:DirectAttrition was active for 5 months before being discovered.

Then there is a problem of users voting at RfCs without carefully reading, see Battleground RfCs. Something needs to be done. I would love to hear others' ideas.VR _talk 18:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KevinL thanks for your consideration. I meant RfCs would still be the same (if consensus was found they'd be binding, not merely advisory). Grounds for challenging would be if the closer misapplied policy, misread sources etc. I'm fine if a closure challenge (at WP:AN) is concluded based on a headcount of admins (and this arbitration case findings will be based on head counts of arbs) - that's because I'm confident that admins are knowledgeable about policy, will carefully examine all arguments, and aren't meat/sockpuppets. And I think that an admin can determine that an argument does not reflect RS, and still remain uninvolved.VR _talk 01:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mainly uninvolved here (beyond SPI, cleaning up after socks), so feel free to disregard my opinion. While I admire ten sentiment behind Vice regent's proposal, I don't think it could work in practice due to two main problems. One, it places a sanction or special procedure on the uninvolved RfC closer, potentially driving away RfC closers from this fraught topic area (if they aren't driven already by the ruckus). Two, it places the closer in a situation where he is casting a Wikipedia:Supervote. Certainly a closer can ignore non-policy !votes in a close, but what if both sides present a position that is plausible within policy? The closer using the strength of argument approach would be closing on their personal opinion. Socking has been an issue in this area, evident in SPIs, but some other solution (protection?) should be used to minimise it.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the need to address the broken RfCs, but I'm not sure this is a good thing to mandate. Several thoughts; first, this is broadly policy already; RfCs are not a vote. Second, it's quite often the case that both sides of an argument have a basis in policy; as such this mandate would require "no consensus" closures very often, which would not be an improvement on the current state of affairs. Third, if editors are misquoting and/or misrepresenting sources, that is a sanctionable offense in and of itself. It's unfortunately not something we're very good about sanctioning, because it requires admins to check the sources, but I have placed multiple sanctions in this topic alone for source misrepresentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Vanamonde93

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

One-reply-per-editor RfCs

1) As a discretionary sanction, uninvolved administrators may mandate that a proposed RfC be conducted, or an ongoing RfC be restarted, under a one-comment-per-editor restriction. Editors may provide !votes with evidence, and may post no more than a single reply to any other !vote, but may not engage in further discussion within the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not certain this is a good idea: I'm putting it out there to stimulate discussion. A consistent feature of this dispute is the unwillingness of uninvolved folks to get involved, particularly in RfCs. As the purpose of an RfC is to bring in uninvolved input, this tends to mean that every RfC because a rerun of the talk page discussion. If implemented, this proposal may reduce the massive and intimidating walls of text that appear whenever the protagonists here engage in a "discussion", and thereby, I hope, make it more likely for others to give their opinions. On the flip side, this may strengthen the tendency for any number of previously involved users to jump into an RfC with comments like "Support per User X", and thereby attempting to force through their preferred version. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Users come and go, but dispute remains

Vanamonde made an astute observation that "the cast had shifted while the drama kept going", and provided evidence for many participants, including those who were no longer a party, but were a party at one point. From the Xtools page of top editors, we see even more top disputants, including (topic-)banned users like Icewhiz, ExpectantofLight, SalehHamadi, SharabSalam, LondonHall etc. They have long gone but the disputes remain. Vanamonde gave evidence on just how long-winded the cult dispute has been.

My point is that this evidence calls for arbitrators to up systems and tools that allow for more effective dispute management. Saying "lets block the bad guys and move on" is not a good strategy because:

1. it takes long to accumulate evidences of sufficient disruption before a block is justified; this would be even longer in this case because, as El_C pointed out in their evidence, most of the disruption is Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and obvious disruptions are rare
2. the MEK dispute is attracting fresh parties (I only showed up a year ago, Bahar and Ghazalach showed up after me)

WP:CRP is one such good tool, but I think there need to be more.VR _talk 02:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RfCs might be manipulated by numbers

All sides seem to have given evidence that RfC voting at Talk:MEK has been problematic:

I gave evidence on how RfCs supported by a majority of votes were found to violate policy (see Battleground RfCs)
Stefka's evidence says "on the next RFC, the aforementioned four accounts (with very few edits at the time of their votes) show up to vote in favor of Mhhossein and VR."
El_C's evidence said "the pro-MEK camp (led by SB) railroaded them with sheer numbers."
Ghazaalch's evidence says "[Pro-MEK camp's] last resort...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."

If I'm misinterpreting someone's evidence, please correct me. If we can all agree to this, then we can find solutions to this problem and propose them above.VR _talk 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Vice regent: how are the RFCs you mention "Battleground RfCs"? The RfC where I allegedly "railroaded the opposing side" was taken to ANI. What policy did that RfC break? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are "battleground RfCs" because some users may not be carefully reading them, but instead simply voting for their "side". In that RfC on cult you referenced (#4 in Battleground RfCs), you had proposed a WP:V violation (as determined by Vanamonde); before you corrected it, you had received three "Yes" votes supporting the proposal containing the misrepresentation (Adoring nanny, Idealigic, MAJavadi). Your previous RfC on cult (#1 in Battleground RfCs) had also proposed a WP:V violation, (as determined by L235). A majority had supported that the proposal (containing the misrepresentation) too, including Adoring nanny, Idealigic, MAJavadi. Point is not trying to pick on anyone, but rather that RfC voting needs reform.VR _talk 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this section, Stefka, is that voting might be a problem at Talk:MEK RfCs. Don't you agree?VR _talk 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: In the RFC I mentioned, you had asked me to revise the proposed text, and I revised it. I had put a disclaimer (in bold) that "the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations", so the editors that had voted up until that point seem to be in favor of summarizing the content in question; while the final wording could always be modified based on feedback (and it was).

Despite the disclaimers and amendments, when the RFC didn’t close in your favor, you and Mhhossein protested to the closing admin. When that didn’t work, you then took it to ANI. No-one at ANI determined that the RFC had been “battleground” or a “policy violation”; yet here you are alluding that it was.

While I obviously agree that RFC closers should be looking at content rather than vote counts, the history of the article points to a wider issue (as exemplified by the constant attempts trying to get certain RfCs overturned - regardless of how they were closed - or referring to the RFC in question here as “battleground” or as “violation of policy”).

I also agree with Eostrix’s assessment here; and think that if RFC closers continue to have to deal with such hassle / pressure when closing a RFC in this topic area, this has the potential of driving them away from an area where they are much needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Vice regent: I follow the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I came to the RfCs from that page. My understanding is that's the purpose of the page. "Manipulated" seems like a curious description for this. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Botsum}} and similar participation definitely does not fall within the problematic patterns that we have observed in the talk page. Canvassing and sockpuppetry on MEK-realted RfCs have been a problem for years, as can be observed in the presented evidence related to sockpuppetry. I think manipulation is an apt adjective for what some accounts have tried in the past. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using state-linked sources

Stefka raised a good point about using Ali Ahwazi using Iranian govt linked sources. Let's consider Xinhua News Agency - it's a Chinese govt linked news agency that has been embroiled in controversies and China's press freedom index is just as low as Iran's[8]. Yet Wikipedia:XINHUA says it is "generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". I would treat Iranian state linked sources similarly (unless consensus at WP:RSN says otherwise). Recently Ali Ahwazi's article 4030 Call System was nominated for deletion. Extraordinary Writ cited Iranian govt linked media to establish notability and admin Daniel closed the discussion as keep. Whether Ali Ahwazi is using the sources properly will require a closer look at all his diffs.

Stefka and I had debated on whether a Saudi govt linked newspaper was a reliable source on MEK. I hope Arbitrators can provide guidance on this.VR _talk 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This recent RSN discussion about PressTV may provide some background about IRI propaganda outlets. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of RfCs

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am continuing to read the evidence and it is clear that RfCs have been tried. A lot. So much so El C can't keep them all straight. Why haven't RfCs worked for this dispute? As I read the evidence I am starting to form my answer to this question but would be interested in hearing from others why this dispute resolution method, often effective in my experience, hasn't worked for this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Because same RfCs kept getting tried and re-tried and re-re-tried yet still until... profit? When I was an active admin on the page, I've shut down quite a few with the reasoning being: it's barely been a month or two since this was decided by a previous RfC. El_C 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First I’d like to say that I have the highest regard of El_C and all the efforts they’ve put on the MEK page. My recollection of events, though, is somewhat different (we were also constantly told to open RfCs - [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] - etc.) @El C: could you please provide diffs to these shutdown "re-re-tried" RFCs so that we may evaluate them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, the ~~pool~~ evidence phase is closed. Also, those diffs all seem to involve the time period in which Vanamonde93 was active on the page (in fact, I believe they're all comments by Vanamonde93 himself), which was after my time so I have little knowledge of what took place then, anyway, so as to challenge anyone's recollection. But sure, struck. And with that, I bid you all adieu. El_C 08:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My experience about why RFCs have been difficult there: 1) editors persistent bludgeoning 2) editors persistent protesting to closing admins after RFCs were closed 3) editors persistently trying to prevent RFCs from happening (even though that seemed to be our last alternative for reaching consensus in those unending discussions). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I believe the failure of RfCs here is a symptom, not the disease. Were I to be told of this dispute while unaware of the talk page history, I would in fact recommend RfCs, because they are supposed to be the cure for our perennial problem here; editors unable to examine content questions dispassionately. I think the answer to your question is the same as the reason why there's only two admins who have worked here regularly; and why threads on the admin noticeboards get no attention. Participants tend to drown any discussion in repetitive walls of text. I have an idea about this, which I'll propose shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 618: / Line 618: @@
 :::They are "battleground RfCs" because some users may not be carefully reading them, but instead simply voting for their "side". In that RfC on cult you referenced (#4 in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence#BATTLEGROUND_RfCs|Battleground RfCs]]), you had proposed a [[WP:V]] violation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=982193611 as determined by] Vanamonde); before you corrected it, you had received three "Yes" votes supporting the proposal containing the misrepresentation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=981613336&oldid=981503352&title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran Adoring nanny], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=982222153 Idealigic], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=981990468 MAJavadi]). Your previous RfC on cult (#1 in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence#BATTLEGROUND_RfCs|Battleground RfCs]]) had also proposed a [[WP:V]] violation, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=980105275 as determined by] {{u|L235}}). A majority had supported that the proposal (containing the misrepresentation) too, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=962613090 Adoring nanny], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=962704026 Idealigic], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=964084209 MAJavadi]. Point is not trying to pick on anyone, but rather that RfC voting needs reform.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 :*The point of this section, {{u|Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka}}, is that voting might be a problem at Talk:MEK RfCs. Don't you agree?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
+{{od}}
+{{ping|Vice regent}} In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=991370548&oldid=991240300 RFC I mentioned], you had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=981815760&oldid=981814647 asked me] to revise the proposed text, and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=982472545&oldid=982338046 revised it]. I had put a disclaimer (in bold) that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=981445049&oldid=981336190 "the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes '''reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations'''"], so the editors that had voted up until that point seem to be in favor of summarizing the content in question; while the final wording could always be modified based on feedback (and it was).
+Despite the disclaimers and amendments, when the RFC didn’t close in your favor, you and Mhhossein [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&oldid=991680741#RfC_closure protested to the closing admin]. When that didn’t work, you then [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive329#Requesting_RfC_be_re-closed took it to ANI]. No-one at ANI determined that the RFC had been “battleground” or a “policy violation”; yet here you are alluding that it was.
+While I obviously agree that RFC closers should be looking at content rather than vote counts, the history of the article points to a wider issue (as exemplified by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence#WP:PUSH_from_Mhhosssein_through_attempts_to_invalidate_RfCs constant attempts trying to get certain RfCs overturned] - regardless of how they were closed - or referring to the RFC in question here as “battleground” or as “violation of policy”).
+I also agree with Eostrix’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Workshop&diff=1039867110&oldid=1039833399 assessment here]; and think that if RFC closers continue to have to deal with such hassle / pressure when closing a RFC in this topic area, this has the potential of driving them away from an area where they are much needed. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 09:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''