![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: GeneralNotability ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Beeblebrox ( Talk) & Casliber ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
CaptainEEK asked me on my talk page to elaborate on which editors besides the named parties have been involved in this dispute, and who therefore may need to have their behavior examined. I am compiling this list, but it is necessarily a little wordy; I ask that this particular list and associated evidence not be counted toward my word or diff limit. Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: in your evidence you write about the difficulties in organizing evidence. That alone is of some value but, and I am speaking only for myself here,I am always interested in evidence by uninvolved editors who have attempted to mediate a solution introduce evidence along the lines of "Here's a thing going on. Proving it all is hard but here's a diff or two of what I'm talking about." Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
do impressions from my mind count?. I would humbly opine that letting uninvolved editors, who have spent a lot of time in this area, give their impressions (even without diffs or other evidence) could be valuable. (Parties such as myself would still need to dig up diffs and give context). I would assume that it would be less time onerous for one to simply write about their impressions. I don't mean to be presumptuous or pressuring (apologies if I am). VR talk 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I have misled by my absence; I had not completed the list of parties I consider involved before RL called me away. I will complete it as soon as I am able, hopefully in the next 36 hours. I generally take no issue with the inclusions other users have suggested. Vanamonde ( Talk) 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Two posts in this section shouldn't be there, but should be in the users' own section. Polite pings to the two recently active clerks GeneralNotability and CodeLyoko. VR talk 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Last time I edited the MEK article was in July 2019. I have made some contributions to the talk page (particularly RFCs) because I thought it could do with input, but that's mainly it. Alex-h ( talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 You mentioned a possible timetable extension above; any word on what this will look like? I'd rather not engage in a mad scramble to add evidence over the next three days, if we're going to get much more time after that. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I have spent several hours today trying to sift useful evidence from the morass that is Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. I recognize that it would be useful to have the clearest evidence of misconduct summarized, so I will continue to do so. I would, however, urge those of you who have the time to read clear through the archives of that talk page for the last couple of years. I think nothing else can give quite the same understanding of the dispute and the behavior of all the participants. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Struck per Barkeep's note - will re-add at workshop stage Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: Per this discussion, may I have an additional 500 words to provide context and clarify? Even as I reread my own evidence now with fresh eyes, I see that my attempt to keep my evidence within 500 words resulted in a significant loss of context. If after that point Nosebagbear or any other editors have questions or concerns, I'll be glad to discuss it at Analysis of Evidence during the Workshop phase, but I think I should be clearer before we get there. Red Phoenix talk 01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The evidences provided here [3] [4] contain too long subsection titles which I think is misrepresenting me. Should the titles change? -- Mhhossein talk 04:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Pinging Barkeep49 for their kind attention. -- Mhhossein talk 04:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: As a party to this case, I have tried to provide my evidences but am concerned with the length restrictions. Could I kindly ask for an additional 500 words for a better portrayal of the diffs and evidences? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I am also a bit concerned about length restrictions. Could I also please have a 500-word extension? (I'll do my best not to use it, but would be good to know is there just in case). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I definitely also need a 500 word extension, would you be kind enough to grant it? Thanks. VR talk 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
When I
posted my evidence, I said "if you see any mistakes or misrepresentations leave a message on
User talk:Vice regent. I'm very amenable to feedback.
" So I wish to politely extend this same courtesy to @
Stefka Bulgaria:. Arbs please let me know if I'm out of line here and I'll strike this section. Stefka I feel you may have missed some things when you compiled your evidence regarding me.
“shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution”. But this was accidental and I restored that back only 5 minutes later. Did you miss my self-revert?
the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule, which was not in any sources. But I fixed my mistake as soon as Alex-h pointed it out, in case you missed this.
I know that I would appreciate it if people reviewed my evidence for mistakes and gave me an opportunity to correct them. Again I apologize in advance if this is not the right place for this. VR talk 18:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Pretty such I have given a sufficient explanation everytime per the rules. And regarding your accusation that I did not read the RFC, you were already told that it was not on purpose, and told to refrain from making such accusations towards me, yet you've done it here again? [5] [6] [7] I'm not sure what your obsession with me is; I haven't sat foot in these MEK related articles in ages (and dont want to either) and yet you've mentioned (smeared) me like twice this month. Leave me alone or I will report you for harassment. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page", I have moved it to this talk page as a clerk action. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk/ CCI guide 00:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of @ El C:'s "Evidence difficult to curate" I would recommend considering even older archives, to gain better vision over what is going on. Adding to what I said here, there are some important things being of the most disputed topics. One of them, as Vanamonde said, is labels for the MEK. The other one is MEK's ideology – looking at the comments, you can see discussion over ideology date back to "2005" ( here) and had been of interest to the pro-MEK socks. On the other hand, since these first archives are not as large as the recent ones, it is not difficult to address them. -- Mhhossein talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC) (transferred here by me, from the evidence page, due to the word limits).-- Mhhossein talk 07:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
How are words counted? I determined my word count by copying and pasting visual text (not source text) into https://wordcounter.net/ where it shows my evidence as exactly 1,495 words. I wonder if there's an official word counter. I didn't try to count my diffs, can you do that automatically somehow? VR talk 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
[^\[]\[[^\[]
(to count open single square brackets) and [^\[]\[\[[^\[]
(to count closed double square brackets). In regards to word counting,
User:L235/wordcount.js provides a section-by-section word count which I use to determine word counts without having to use an external tool. There isn't an official word counter, but any word counter that provides an accurate enough count should be fine. Generally a statement over it's word limit by a few words is not a problem as the word limits are there to encourage concise evidence submissions, but ideally all submissions should remain under the limit. As such small discrepancies between the counts by different tools shouldn't be an issue if you are close to or under the limit.
Dreamy Jazz
talk to me |
my contributions 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
i tried looking at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and i have never closed a tab so quickly." Re-reading my section, I've immediately spotted about 15 diffs that are somewhat redundant/unnecessary. If you give me permission I can remove those myself, or I can work with an arb or clerk and tell them which ones these are. VR talk 15:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: GeneralNotability ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Beeblebrox ( Talk) & Casliber ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
CaptainEEK asked me on my talk page to elaborate on which editors besides the named parties have been involved in this dispute, and who therefore may need to have their behavior examined. I am compiling this list, but it is necessarily a little wordy; I ask that this particular list and associated evidence not be counted toward my word or diff limit. Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: in your evidence you write about the difficulties in organizing evidence. That alone is of some value but, and I am speaking only for myself here,I am always interested in evidence by uninvolved editors who have attempted to mediate a solution introduce evidence along the lines of "Here's a thing going on. Proving it all is hard but here's a diff or two of what I'm talking about." Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
do impressions from my mind count?. I would humbly opine that letting uninvolved editors, who have spent a lot of time in this area, give their impressions (even without diffs or other evidence) could be valuable. (Parties such as myself would still need to dig up diffs and give context). I would assume that it would be less time onerous for one to simply write about their impressions. I don't mean to be presumptuous or pressuring (apologies if I am). VR talk 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I have misled by my absence; I had not completed the list of parties I consider involved before RL called me away. I will complete it as soon as I am able, hopefully in the next 36 hours. I generally take no issue with the inclusions other users have suggested. Vanamonde ( Talk) 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Two posts in this section shouldn't be there, but should be in the users' own section. Polite pings to the two recently active clerks GeneralNotability and CodeLyoko. VR talk 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Last time I edited the MEK article was in July 2019. I have made some contributions to the talk page (particularly RFCs) because I thought it could do with input, but that's mainly it. Alex-h ( talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 You mentioned a possible timetable extension above; any word on what this will look like? I'd rather not engage in a mad scramble to add evidence over the next three days, if we're going to get much more time after that. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I have spent several hours today trying to sift useful evidence from the morass that is Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. I recognize that it would be useful to have the clearest evidence of misconduct summarized, so I will continue to do so. I would, however, urge those of you who have the time to read clear through the archives of that talk page for the last couple of years. I think nothing else can give quite the same understanding of the dispute and the behavior of all the participants. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Struck per Barkeep's note - will re-add at workshop stage Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: Per this discussion, may I have an additional 500 words to provide context and clarify? Even as I reread my own evidence now with fresh eyes, I see that my attempt to keep my evidence within 500 words resulted in a significant loss of context. If after that point Nosebagbear or any other editors have questions or concerns, I'll be glad to discuss it at Analysis of Evidence during the Workshop phase, but I think I should be clearer before we get there. Red Phoenix talk 01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The evidences provided here [3] [4] contain too long subsection titles which I think is misrepresenting me. Should the titles change? -- Mhhossein talk 04:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Pinging Barkeep49 for their kind attention. -- Mhhossein talk 04:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: As a party to this case, I have tried to provide my evidences but am concerned with the length restrictions. Could I kindly ask for an additional 500 words for a better portrayal of the diffs and evidences? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I am also a bit concerned about length restrictions. Could I also please have a 500-word extension? (I'll do my best not to use it, but would be good to know is there just in case). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I definitely also need a 500 word extension, would you be kind enough to grant it? Thanks. VR talk 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
When I
posted my evidence, I said "if you see any mistakes or misrepresentations leave a message on
User talk:Vice regent. I'm very amenable to feedback.
" So I wish to politely extend this same courtesy to @
Stefka Bulgaria:. Arbs please let me know if I'm out of line here and I'll strike this section. Stefka I feel you may have missed some things when you compiled your evidence regarding me.
“shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution”. But this was accidental and I restored that back only 5 minutes later. Did you miss my self-revert?
the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule, which was not in any sources. But I fixed my mistake as soon as Alex-h pointed it out, in case you missed this.
I know that I would appreciate it if people reviewed my evidence for mistakes and gave me an opportunity to correct them. Again I apologize in advance if this is not the right place for this. VR talk 18:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Pretty such I have given a sufficient explanation everytime per the rules. And regarding your accusation that I did not read the RFC, you were already told that it was not on purpose, and told to refrain from making such accusations towards me, yet you've done it here again? [5] [6] [7] I'm not sure what your obsession with me is; I haven't sat foot in these MEK related articles in ages (and dont want to either) and yet you've mentioned (smeared) me like twice this month. Leave me alone or I will report you for harassment. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page", I have moved it to this talk page as a clerk action. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk/ CCI guide 00:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
In light of @ El C:'s "Evidence difficult to curate" I would recommend considering even older archives, to gain better vision over what is going on. Adding to what I said here, there are some important things being of the most disputed topics. One of them, as Vanamonde said, is labels for the MEK. The other one is MEK's ideology – looking at the comments, you can see discussion over ideology date back to "2005" ( here) and had been of interest to the pro-MEK socks. On the other hand, since these first archives are not as large as the recent ones, it is not difficult to address them. -- Mhhossein talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC) (transferred here by me, from the evidence page, due to the word limits).-- Mhhossein talk 07:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
How are words counted? I determined my word count by copying and pasting visual text (not source text) into https://wordcounter.net/ where it shows my evidence as exactly 1,495 words. I wonder if there's an official word counter. I didn't try to count my diffs, can you do that automatically somehow? VR talk 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
[^\[]\[[^\[]
(to count open single square brackets) and [^\[]\[\[[^\[]
(to count closed double square brackets). In regards to word counting,
User:L235/wordcount.js provides a section-by-section word count which I use to determine word counts without having to use an external tool. There isn't an official word counter, but any word counter that provides an accurate enough count should be fine. Generally a statement over it's word limit by a few words is not a problem as the word limits are there to encourage concise evidence submissions, but ideally all submissions should remain under the limit. As such small discrepancies between the counts by different tools shouldn't be an issue if you are close to or under the limit.
Dreamy Jazz
talk to me |
my contributions 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
i tried looking at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and i have never closed a tab so quickly." Re-reading my section, I've immediately spotted about 15 diffs that are somewhat redundant/unnecessary. If you give me permission I can remove those myself, or I can work with an arb or clerk and tell them which ones these are. VR talk 15:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)