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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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[6]. 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: