![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: GeneralNotability ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Beeblebrox ( Talk) & Casliber ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
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.
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Requests for Comments are the usual method in Wikipedia for determining rough consensus on article content, as well as on other matters. Because of the importance of RFCs as part of the collaborative editing process, editors must conduct themselves with civility, and administrators should require that editors conduct themselves with civility.
Interference with the process of reaching rough consensus by means of RFCs may make maintenance of the encyclopedia impossible. Interference with the RFC process may take forms such as filibustering, walls of text, personal attacks, or bludgeoning. Editors who disrupt RFCs must be sanctioned. Exclusion of such editors, by topic-bans, is a minimum remedy, not a maximum remedy, because any remedy up to a site ban may be imposed as necessary.
1) The scope of disruption is
People's Mujahedin of Iran MEK,
broadly construed.
Note: Any remedies below are written to spur discussion and hone in on what remedies may be effective in this dispute. Just because I propose it does not mean I actually support it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
1) Editors who are (word needed but something like WP:INVOLVED) may only participate in their own designated section during any RfCs in this topic area. Any uninvolved administrator may move the comments of (word needed) to the designated section. Their participation will be considered on an equal basis with any other editors when determining consensus.
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
who has participated in more than two substantive discussions about the MEK" (broadly construed). Someone like me can't be considered uninvolved on any MEK-related topic even if I've not directly addressed that specific topic before. I like Kevin's idea of a strong "pre-RfC conferral" so that as many issues can be resolved pre-RfC as possible. For example, if a dispute involves both wording issues (editorial) and reliability issues, we first try to resolve the reliability issues via WP:RSN and then take only the wording issues to RfC. If we present too many issues simultaneously we end up confusing everyone. VR talk 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
2) No RfC about the same, or functionally similar, topic may be launched with-in 90 days of the last RfC (tracked from the end of the RfC), except any RfC which is about how to implement a consensus from a previous RfC. Any uninvolved administrator may close any RfC which is launched prior to the end of the moratorium or which, even in good faith, circumvents a pre-RfC discussion outside of a moratorium. Editors may ask for enforcement of this remedy at arbitration enforcement.
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).
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.
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).
3)
WP:DUE requires we give more weight to viewpoints that are more common in
WP:RS (esp
WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It also advises that The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.
4) Content disputes must be resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, as per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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).
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.
3) An admin, at their discretion, may decide that good faith involvement of a user is not helpful and therefore tells the user to recuse themselves from a specific discussion and/or for a specified period. This "sanction" should not be considered evidence of misbehavior. But if the user violates this removal, then they would be tbanned.
4) 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).
5) The ArbCom appoints moderator(s) of discussion for RfCs (and discussions preceding an RfC) at Talk:MEK. Only one moderator is necessary at a time, but a pool of moderators is helpful in case some are unavailable.
no uninvolved admin wants to provide active enforcement" on MEK. Instead of appointing moderators maybe ArbCom can suggest some? VR talk 22:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
6) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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.
"post no more than a single reply to any other !vote, but may not engage in further discussion within the RfC"is also really necessary in those RFCs. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 08:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
2) As a discretionary sanction, uninvolved administrators may restrict editors from participating in RfCs.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction can be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for review by the arbitrators.
-- Mhhossein talk 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
2) Users should not make more than 1 revert in 24 hrs.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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:
WP:CRP is one such good tool, but I think there need to be more. VR talk 02:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
All sides seem to have given evidence that RfC voting at Talk:MEK has been problematic:
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."
the pro-MEK camp (led by SB) railroaded them with sheer numbers."
[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)
@ 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)
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
[17]. 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)
This RfC attemps to remove that content altogether, which will not fly". VR talk 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"And calling the soldiers of Iran as "pro-Khomeini soldiers" is weird. The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war."[19]
"Saddam"to
"Iraq(per VR’s comment). [20]
“used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus."[21]
"Post Iran-Iraq war"with
“Post-war Saddam era”as a section tittle (in a section that only mentions
“Saddam”once). [22]
"I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12]"[23]
In August 2020
Vanamonde93 TBANned @
BarcrMac: from MEK for 3 months, saying "I've made the need to be careful with sources abundantly clear, but your latest post is still playing fast and loose with the sources
" and giving several examples of misbehavior
[37].
Yet even after that TBAN Barca continued to misuse sources during discussions in 2021:
"I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism."[39]
I have only expanded on evidence presented already in either Vanamonde's section or mine.
To me this appears to be a long-term behavioral issue. VR talk 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Those challenging RfC closures have been criticized. But I think these challenges have raised legitimate concerns (as evidences by some closures being redone).
VR talk 23:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Stefka Bulgaria: has asked questions about evidence at BATTLEGROUND RfCs, so lets discuss it here. I'll be happy to answer any questions. VR talk 00:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Despite all that's been said in this case about the importance of sourcing (and past
track record),
Vice regent currently continues to misrepresent sources: see
here where they wikivoiced that
Massoud Rajavi is no longer the leader of the MEK (which is
not supported by the sources). VR then
changed and then
removed from the lede that "it is not known whether [Rajavi] is still alive"
(even though this is supported by the scholarly source: "... authorities are not certain whether he is dead or alive."
)
[1].
Stefka Bulgaria (
talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
"it is not known whether [Rajavi] is still alive", the source he gives is from 2012. But 4 news articles dated 2017-2020 ( see list including New York Times, The Guardian), plus a a scholarly source from 2020, all say that Rajavi "is believed to be dead". When it comes to determining if someone is alive we must obviously give more weight to more recent sources. VR talk 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Massoud who was long the leader of the group". Still, I had tweaked that wording as a compromise to you. VR talk 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded).
I just looked through RfCs at Talk:MEK and found that in pretty much all RfCs there are few/none outside voters (even when the RfC isn't bludgeoned). By contrast we tend to get more uninvolved comment when we bring the issue to high-visibility boards like WP:ORN ( this discussion), WP:RSN ( [50] [51] [52]), WP:NPOVN ( [53]). This RSN discussion brought an outsider to Talk:MEK.
I think it would be productive if disputes about sources, OR and certain NPOV issues could be resolved on high-visibility boards. I'm not sure how we'd remedy this, maybe a DS where an admin, who sees a discussion at Talk:MEK going in circles could mandate the parties as a neutrally worded question at one of these boards. Asking Vanamonde93 and others for their thoughts. VR talk 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The records of the page shows that socking has been an issue with this page (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive & Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Newcomer1). Moreover, as Vice Regent mentioned here, 500/30 has been WP:GAMEd during the past years – gaming 500/30 restriction is evident in the editing behavior of the discovered socks. How many uncovered socks are waiting to enter the page in future and how will they act? I have no remedies or proposals in mind to protect this page against socks and just meant to ask for thoughts from other participants to this case. -- Mhhossein talk 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Stefka made allegations in the section "Failure of RfCs". But neither of his examples relates to RfCs. More examples of Stefka bringing up irrelevant topics during discussion, see my evidence#CPUSH at cult.
His first allegation about section title containing "Saddam" was explained here. His second allegation as to why I wanted a scholarly source restriction at MEK but not as Massoud Rajavi was explained here. I'm also open to scholarly source restriction when applied by an admin in a consistent way (as I proposed above). VR talk 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have two things in my mind which should be considered for the talk page discussions in general:
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: GeneralNotability ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Beeblebrox ( Talk) & Casliber ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
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.
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Requests for Comments are the usual method in Wikipedia for determining rough consensus on article content, as well as on other matters. Because of the importance of RFCs as part of the collaborative editing process, editors must conduct themselves with civility, and administrators should require that editors conduct themselves with civility.
Interference with the process of reaching rough consensus by means of RFCs may make maintenance of the encyclopedia impossible. Interference with the RFC process may take forms such as filibustering, walls of text, personal attacks, or bludgeoning. Editors who disrupt RFCs must be sanctioned. Exclusion of such editors, by topic-bans, is a minimum remedy, not a maximum remedy, because any remedy up to a site ban may be imposed as necessary.
1) The scope of disruption is
People's Mujahedin of Iran MEK,
broadly construed.
Note: Any remedies below are written to spur discussion and hone in on what remedies may be effective in this dispute. Just because I propose it does not mean I actually support it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
1) Editors who are (word needed but something like WP:INVOLVED) may only participate in their own designated section during any RfCs in this topic area. Any uninvolved administrator may move the comments of (word needed) to the designated section. Their participation will be considered on an equal basis with any other editors when determining consensus.
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
who has participated in more than two substantive discussions about the MEK" (broadly construed). Someone like me can't be considered uninvolved on any MEK-related topic even if I've not directly addressed that specific topic before. I like Kevin's idea of a strong "pre-RfC conferral" so that as many issues can be resolved pre-RfC as possible. For example, if a dispute involves both wording issues (editorial) and reliability issues, we first try to resolve the reliability issues via WP:RSN and then take only the wording issues to RfC. If we present too many issues simultaneously we end up confusing everyone. VR talk 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
2) No RfC about the same, or functionally similar, topic may be launched with-in 90 days of the last RfC (tracked from the end of the RfC), except any RfC which is about how to implement a consensus from a previous RfC. Any uninvolved administrator may close any RfC which is launched prior to the end of the moratorium or which, even in good faith, circumvents a pre-RfC discussion outside of a moratorium. Editors may ask for enforcement of this remedy at arbitration enforcement.
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).
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.
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).
3)
WP:DUE requires we give more weight to viewpoints that are more common in
WP:RS (esp
WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It also advises that The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.
4) Content disputes must be resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, as per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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).
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.
3) An admin, at their discretion, may decide that good faith involvement of a user is not helpful and therefore tells the user to recuse themselves from a specific discussion and/or for a specified period. This "sanction" should not be considered evidence of misbehavior. But if the user violates this removal, then they would be tbanned.
4) 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).
5) The ArbCom appoints moderator(s) of discussion for RfCs (and discussions preceding an RfC) at Talk:MEK. Only one moderator is necessary at a time, but a pool of moderators is helpful in case some are unavailable.
no uninvolved admin wants to provide active enforcement" on MEK. Instead of appointing moderators maybe ArbCom can suggest some? VR talk 22:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
6) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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.
"post no more than a single reply to any other !vote, but may not engage in further discussion within the RfC"is also really necessary in those RFCs. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 08:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
2) As a discretionary sanction, uninvolved administrators may restrict editors from participating in RfCs.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction can be reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for review by the arbitrators.
-- Mhhossein talk 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
2) Users should not make more than 1 revert in 24 hrs.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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:
WP:CRP is one such good tool, but I think there need to be more. VR talk 02:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
All sides seem to have given evidence that RfC voting at Talk:MEK has been problematic:
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."
the pro-MEK camp (led by SB) railroaded them with sheer numbers."
[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)
@ 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)
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
[17]. 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)
This RfC attemps to remove that content altogether, which will not fly". VR talk 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"And calling the soldiers of Iran as "pro-Khomeini soldiers" is weird. The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war."[19]
"Saddam"to
"Iraq(per VR’s comment). [20]
“used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus."[21]
"Post Iran-Iraq war"with
“Post-war Saddam era”as a section tittle (in a section that only mentions
“Saddam”once). [22]
"I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12]"[23]
In August 2020
Vanamonde93 TBANned @
BarcrMac: from MEK for 3 months, saying "I've made the need to be careful with sources abundantly clear, but your latest post is still playing fast and loose with the sources
" and giving several examples of misbehavior
[37].
Yet even after that TBAN Barca continued to misuse sources during discussions in 2021:
"I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism."[39]
I have only expanded on evidence presented already in either Vanamonde's section or mine.
To me this appears to be a long-term behavioral issue. VR talk 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Those challenging RfC closures have been criticized. But I think these challenges have raised legitimate concerns (as evidences by some closures being redone).
VR talk 23:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Stefka Bulgaria: has asked questions about evidence at BATTLEGROUND RfCs, so lets discuss it here. I'll be happy to answer any questions. VR talk 00:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Despite all that's been said in this case about the importance of sourcing (and past
track record),
Vice regent currently continues to misrepresent sources: see
here where they wikivoiced that
Massoud Rajavi is no longer the leader of the MEK (which is
not supported by the sources). VR then
changed and then
removed from the lede that "it is not known whether [Rajavi] is still alive"
(even though this is supported by the scholarly source: "... authorities are not certain whether he is dead or alive."
)
[1].
Stefka Bulgaria (
talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
"it is not known whether [Rajavi] is still alive", the source he gives is from 2012. But 4 news articles dated 2017-2020 ( see list including New York Times, The Guardian), plus a a scholarly source from 2020, all say that Rajavi "is believed to be dead". When it comes to determining if someone is alive we must obviously give more weight to more recent sources. VR talk 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Massoud who was long the leader of the group". Still, I had tweaked that wording as a compromise to you. VR talk 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded).
I just looked through RfCs at Talk:MEK and found that in pretty much all RfCs there are few/none outside voters (even when the RfC isn't bludgeoned). By contrast we tend to get more uninvolved comment when we bring the issue to high-visibility boards like WP:ORN ( this discussion), WP:RSN ( [50] [51] [52]), WP:NPOVN ( [53]). This RSN discussion brought an outsider to Talk:MEK.
I think it would be productive if disputes about sources, OR and certain NPOV issues could be resolved on high-visibility boards. I'm not sure how we'd remedy this, maybe a DS where an admin, who sees a discussion at Talk:MEK going in circles could mandate the parties as a neutrally worded question at one of these boards. Asking Vanamonde93 and others for their thoughts. VR talk 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The records of the page shows that socking has been an issue with this page (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive & Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Newcomer1). Moreover, as Vice Regent mentioned here, 500/30 has been WP:GAMEd during the past years – gaming 500/30 restriction is evident in the editing behavior of the discovered socks. How many uncovered socks are waiting to enter the page in future and how will they act? I have no remedies or proposals in mind to protect this page against socks and just meant to ask for thoughts from other participants to this case. -- Mhhossein talk 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Stefka made allegations in the section "Failure of RfCs". But neither of his examples relates to RfCs. More examples of Stefka bringing up irrelevant topics during discussion, see my evidence#CPUSH at cult.
His first allegation about section title containing "Saddam" was explained here. His second allegation as to why I wanted a scholarly source restriction at MEK but not as Massoud Rajavi was explained here. I'm also open to scholarly source restriction when applied by an admin in a consistent way (as I proposed above). VR talk 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I have two things in my mind which should be considered for the talk page discussions in general: