User talk:Mhhossein

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; s/ 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Frustrated

I'm honestly really frustrated with the discussion at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran, hence I made this somewhat desperate appeal. What do you feel is the way forward? Should there be an arbcom case?VR _talk 02:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Having been frustrated myself (since 2018), I completely understand what you say. I guess we are moving towards an Arbcom case. I will also reply to your comment on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Iranian opposition articles (People's Mujahedin of Iran) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Idealigic (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Ok, thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Salam, do you know where I can find images for Draft:Alchemiya that will not be considered copyright violations?VR _talk 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Salam, for this purpose I usually refer to Flickr which I think is not helpful in this case. You may also check this out. Though you may upload and use logos with the aim of using it in your article. Btw, I made a bold edit to your draft (you can revert it if you need). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the policy on using a company's logo? If I copied their logo and uploaded it, would it count as a copyright violation?VR _talk 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which one?

You nominated the Eid al-Ghadir for 29 july (OTD), but according to the info box of Event of Ghadir Khumm, 28 July is a date for this event on 2021.Which one is correct?Saff V. (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Saff V.. Happy to see you around, you had not been editing for a while. I believe 29 is correct and I have changed the date in Eid al-Ghadir and nominated it for the OTD. Please correct the other paper. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration thoughts

What are your thoughts on the arbitration so far? I just wanted to bounce some ideas off of you. I hope this isn't against the rules.

I currently see two threads in arbitration, one is about civil POV-pushing, and the other seems to be about sock and meat puppetry. One on hand WP:A/G says Almost no ArbCom cases have actually required careful attention to content issues to get the necessary result. On the other hand, Vanamonde said (and I agree with him) that Determining where some users have crossed the line from reasonable exercise of judgement to POV-pushing will require examining some sources. So that leaves me a bit confused.VR _talk 18:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Sock and meat puppetry thread should be taken seriously. Btw, do we really have "ant-MEK" sock farms? I think Vanamonde's comment is in line with the A/G quote. Vanamonde was not talking about resolving a content issue, but he was talking about the editors who did not acted properly at "resolving the content issues". It was repeated over and over that Scholarly sources had to be the determining criteria. Plus, I believe there are more editing evidences which can be used to determine POV pushing. I will add them soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposals

I also wanted to bounce some policy proposals. I want some constructive criticism before I take them to arbitration.

1. A WP:ACDS that puts rules on how RfCs may be closed at contentious articles. Some rules that could be useful:

The closure is done based entirely on strength of arguments and careful examination of sources but not on head counting. At least one RfC closure at the MEK page took into account head counting. Head counting encourages sock and meat puppetry.
The closure is always done by an admin.

2. WP:ANRFC is where admins can close discussions. To do this, they have to carefully go through every single comment and then check the links to make sure the user is making a correct argument. This is, of course, time consuming. So why not instead of closing an RfC, there is request to moderate an RfC. It will also require an admin to go read everyone's comment. But if someone is on the wrong track, the admin can admonish them quickly and avoid a WP:WALLOFTEXT. There can be a WP:ACDS that an RfC on a contentious page can't start unless there's an admin willing to monitor it. It might slow things down, but WP:NODEADLINE.VR _talk 18:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: I just reviewed your comment today. I would say your suggestions are quite necessary for pages like MEK. Generally I like your "monitoring" option, but for the RFCs, what if there is no admin willing to monitor the discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we wait until one becomes available per WP:NODEADLINE?VR _talk 01:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is merely an essay. I would find a way to have both 'accurate monitoring' and 'timely response'– though I know the latter is just a wish! I guess that would be possible if the articles to be monitored were limited. Generally, as I said, I support your "monitoring" suggestion. I believe that will reduce the amount of works for future. Once the users realize they can't create a support illusion by Wikilawyering, stonewalling and inviting other users, next RFCs are expected to be free of these issues. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:CRP already makes things very slow, so 'timely response' becomes less of a concern on contentious articles.VR _talk 10:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, Vice Regent. In my experience there's long been a problem with stonewalling and manipulation in American politics and gun control topics that isn't easily addressed by our current DS system. Although DS theoretically allows any admin to impose sanctions at their discretion with minimal discussion, the only way for an editor to request DS action is to build a huge pile of evidence against another editor and present it at Arbitration Enforcement, creating even more drama. Admins at AE often expect the evidence to be presented as a series of diffs which they can look over instead of reading the actual discussion, which isn't easily done when it comes to stonewalling, and anything that's arguably content related is dismissed as a content dispute, often with an admonition to the filer to refrain from using AE to resolve content disputes. This system just isn't very good at addressing deeper issues beyond clear-cut personal attacks, edit warring, etc. I like the monitoring idea and would expand it to having an admin (or several) keep an eye on the entire page (or even multiple related pages) for a period of time. I think Bishonen was doing something like this with gun control articles for a while and might have some insight. The key would be to have a request system similar to WP:RFPP where an editor can make a very simple and neutral. "hey, this discussion keeps going off track, could someone take a look at it?" request that doesn't require a huge discussion. As a non-admin I realize this is a huge ask, but I hope that if something like this becomes standard procedure then more admins might be willing to participate. –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dlthewave, for joining the discussion. It seems there should be a big change, but I think this change would significantly reduce the amounts of works to be done in future for a monitored discussion. Just imagine how the discussion length and consequently the closure can be boosted. Needless to mention it also reduces the stonewalling and filibustering given the fact that an admin is critically watching the whole process. The admin does not need to address every single comment, sometimes a single comment can send a clear-cut message to the participants in terms of telling them what matters most in a certain discussion. Also thank you, User:Vice regent, for your time. But, what is the first step towards this goal do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, maybe a proposal at WP:VPI? This does fit within our existing policies and guideline, especially on DS topics, so there's nothing preventing admins from monitoring discussions right now if they choose. –dlthewave ☎ 14:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave you said about making a request "hey, this discussion keeps going off track, could someone take a look at it?". Once an admin volunteers their time, instead of wasting their time going through an off track discussion, the admin should simply close the discussion as "no consensus". The admin then starts a new discussion, watching it closely, and as soon as it starts to veer off, they immediately step in. Nobody wants to go through veered off discussions (that maybe started months ago) and thats why there is reluctance among admins to do so. Our current model (esp at WP:Closure requests) is to be reactive and I say we switch to being proactive.VR _talk 03:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polite pings to @Dlthewave: and @Mhhossein:. I want to propose this at an ArbCom workshop, but before I do, do you guys have more feedback?VR _talk 16:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I do see the value in simply closing the discussion and starting a new, monitored one, but the idea I had in mind was more like long-term monitoring of the entire talk page. Are the same people rehashing the same arguments over and over across multiple discussions? Does one editor challenge every piece of negative (or positive) content that's added, often on a faulty premise? Is well-sourced content repeatedly being blocked because of some minor quibble over phrasing? These are patterns that can emerge over weeks or months across multiple discussions, even if the behavior in one particular discussion doesn't appear out of line. That said, this is what I've seen in US politics discussions, and it makes sense to tailor the solution to the topic at hand. –dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave I completely agree about long-term admin monitoring of the talk page. We all agree. But how do we get more admins to come and monitor?

Here is a proposal of what I want to write at ArbCom (based on above feedback):

On pages where WP:Civil POV pushing dominates over more obvious disruption, greater, long-term administrator attention is necessary. There is a need for a request system where users can neutrally request admins for such attention (similar to WP:RFPP).

Thoughts?VR _talk 14:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for a Farsi speaker

Hello Mhhossein. I've been having some difficulty communicating with the user Navidarian, who has repeatedly added unsourced content to The Kabul Times. I suspect there is a language barrier... Special:CentralAuth shows that they are active on fa-wiki, so I think they a native speaker of Farsi. Would you be able to help them out? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drm310. Sure. What do you want me to tell them specifically? I did not see a discussion on the article talk page.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The discussions have been spread across their user talk page in a somewhat disorganized way.

For starters, this diff has me wondering if they're being paid by the The Kabul Times for either editing the article or taking photos for them. If true, then they must understand that full disclosure under the paid editing disclosure policy is required. That diff, this diff and all their revdel'd edits to The Kaul Times article also makes me wonder if they understand the copyright policy. I'm not an expert on it, but I know that if text or images are copyrighted, then the verified copyright owner must provide proof of their identity and formally release the work for us to accept it here.

They've also added unsourced content here and here, and used circular referencing to fa-wiki here and here. They don't seem to understand what is considered a reliable source, or that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source because it's self-published.

It also seems that they believe that the messages we're leaving them are accusing them of acting in bad faith. We're not, but they need to understand that certain policies are pretty strict (copyright and paid editing, particularly). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the explanations, Drm310. This diff further shows there is a language barrier. I guess he mistakenly used "job" for 'work', when he meant to say the pic was his own 'work'. I will tell him the rest. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. I hope that helps him better understand English Wikipedia's labyrinth of rules. I can only imagine how challenging it is for someone for whom English isn't their first language. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I have left a Farsi message on their talk page conveying your main concerns. Also thanks for your understanding. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have others commended you?

I am collecting some evidence on you for arbitration (both positive and negative). Vanamonde said you've "done a lot of decent content work with respect to Iranian topics" and El_C said Mhhossein is an editor in good standing who focuses on the WP:GS/IRANPOL topic area and vouched for your "integrity". Have others (esp admin) praised your work in post-1978 Iranian topics?VR _talk 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent Thanks for bringing this point to my eyes. I don't remember exactly. But I have a GA in this area with the others being of a suitable quality. I will let you know if there is anything important. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this comment from an admin, praising my works for the betterment of the encyclopedia. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]