Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 44

RFCs being misused as a short-cut

 * There's a every day growing trend of rounding TP discussions in this page. We are amid an premature discussion and an awkward RFC is opened aimed at railroading the talks. For instance, look at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Looking at the details, it is clear that the OPs even don't pay attention to primary details before rushing into RFCs. When you can not prove yourself by policies and guidelines, simply open an RFC and bring more users to RFCs quench the ongoing discussions! This strategy should be stopped immediately. -- M h hossein   talk 05:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what's happening here. The policies are being discussed but there is constant stonewalling, so uninvolved editors are needed to help brake these stalemates (which is what RfCs are for). Even 's "Lead too long" tag was removed despite agreements from all sides that the lede is currently too long. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What seems to be happening is that some editors simply want to discuss and discuss and discuss. Either the lede section is too long, or it is the right length.  So someone removed the tag, not because it is the right length, but because they want to discuss other matters.  It seems that they also want to discuss changes in the wording rather than resolve the discussion.  The policies and guidelines say that discussion is a good idea before an RFC.  They don't say that endless discussion should take the place of RFCs.  Maybe the RFCs are the way to resolve the discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say here. For nearly two years now, I have tried to moderate these discussions, and while the worst of the behavioral issues have abated, I see no change in the attitudes of any involved. Not one of you has agreed to any substantive compromise; and unless that changes, this page will remain an unreadable mess, and there's nothing an uninvolved admin can do about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are not aware that the page is under WP:consensus required restriction, mainly to stop the pro-MEK users from performing mass changes. Moreover, regarding the RFCs, I invite you to take a look this comment by El_C and this discussion to realize how they were misusing RFCs to railroad the discussions. -- M h hossein   talk 14:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Mhhossein - I was not specifically aware of a consensus required sanction, and that is all the more reason why we should have RFCs. You may be completely confused as to the nature of consensus in Wikipedia or what Requests for Comments are used for.  RFCs are a method of establishing consensus.  Discussion does precede publishing an RFC, but after there is discussion that does not result in consensus, that is what an RFC is used for.  Any argument that a general sanction precludes the use of RFCs is either nonsense or worse than nonsense.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: The restriction is there to stop edit warring. Your comment: "...the page is under WP:consensus required restriction, mainly to stop the pro-MEK users from performing mass changes" is WP:ASPERSIONS and completely false.  Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry to ping you (I know you said you wanted to take a break from this page) but it would be useful to have your input here. Mhhossein keeps quoting you whenever someone tries to open a RfC here to solve a stalemate discussion. Can you please clarify if you have an objection against the opening of RfCs/Dispute Resolutions in this talk page? I have a feeling that Mhhossein will continue to quote you as long as editors keep trying to open RfCs here (which, as I understand, is what editors are supposed to do if they can't come to an agreement), so it would be helpful to establish what the policy is here. Thanks. Regards, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Its worth considering how Vanamonde93 closed the last RfC. He said "clear consensus against proposal A", even though I count 10 supports for A vs only 6 opposes. Why? Because the "oppose" side's arguments were grounded in WP:RS but the "support" sides arguments were not. In another RfC Vanamonde had to intervene twice to prevent Stefka from abusing the RfC to include unverifiable text. RfCs are being used by Stefka and others to ram through policy violations by using votes. For example, it is only through a discussion moderated by an admin that Stefka was persuaded to change his position at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran.VR talk 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde closed that RfC with "clear consensus against proposal A, and partial consensus for proposal B". That's been the case with all the RfCs that haven't closed here in no-consensus on account of all the bludgeoning, which is why some editors just wan t to "discuss and discuss and discuss" and not have any new RfCs opened (which is what editors are supposed to do when an agreement can't be reached in the TP discussions). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What sources say about MeK is "bad" and "very bad", but Stefka is searching for an impartial view between "good" and "bad" and to prove himself, he cherrypick the most lenient view (here I made an example) and define it as the neutral point of view. That is why he never could reach a consensus based on reliable sources and take refuge in RFCs.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense About RFCs as Shortcut
The idea that RFCs are being used as a shortcut to discussion is nonsense (unless it is worse than nonsense). If there is a requirement for consensus, and consensus cannot be reached by discussion, Requests for Comments are the way to obtain consensus in Wikipedia. The comment was made on my talk page (before I closed my talk page to this discussion) that moderated discussion should be used in place of RFCs. Maybe you have exhausted the patience of anyone who would try to be a moderator. It appears that User:Vanamonde93 is finished with moderation, and says that they will either topic-ban everyone, or just leave the page alone. I tried to moderate, and found that there was gaming. I have no intention of moderating any further discussion, and if any requests are made at DRN for moderated discussion, I will close them and recommend that you go to WP:ANI.

Do you really want to all be topic-banned from this page? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record; yes, I'm absolutely finished with moderation. I'll monitor this from time to time, and levy sanctions for egregious behavior as required. But I'm absolutely convinced that nobody here is willing to make compromises to achieve a readable page, and so moderation is a complete waste of my time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the case my comment has conveyed a wrong impression, I am not against the correct utilization of RFCs for building consensus. I have used this method several times during my editing history. I strongly believe the presence of a moderating admin can boost the building process, which has been experienced a couple of times in this page. Anyway, I would like to thank Vanamonde for his time and truly appreciate his hard work. -- M h hossein   talk 15:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic's revert
@Idealigic: Can you explain why you have reverted this edit by Error? The source explicitly talks about the Iranian exiled group, which I think is MEK (aka NCRI). Do you see a major difference between them? -- M h hossein   talk 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained it in me [edit summary] ("This is about the NCRI"). Idealigic (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Lede Too Long
I have again tagged the article as having a lede section that is too long. Read the Manual of Style again. It says that if an article is between 15,000 and 30,000 words, the recommended length of the lede section is two or three paragraphs, and if the article is more than 30,000 words, the recommended length of the lede section is three or four paragraphs. The length of the article is 30,213 words; your exact length may vary depending on what word count tool you are using, but the length is very close to 30,000 words. This means that the lede should probably be three paragraphs. It is eight paragraphs. I have no intention of trying to rework the lede or trying to moderate any discussion, because I think that topic-bans are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right . Here is a proposal that is 4 paragraphs long (the maximum allowed under MOS:LEADLENGTH) but I can shorten it to 3 as well.

I would also appreciate stylistic and policy-based feedback from (if he has the time) as he has been advocating to make this article readable.VR talk 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Vice regent - I'm finished here. I don't know whether you can persuade User:Vanamonde93 to help you, because I can see that all of you exhausted their patience as much as you did mine.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into this. Some months ago I was tempted to take off my admin hat, as it were, and try to clean up the article myself; but the utter unwillingness to compromise has convinced me that would be an endeavor as futile as the discussions I have attempted to moderate. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am Ok with this proposal, however some minor changes are required. For instance, the following sequence is more accurate, I think: "The MEK attacked the Iran regime...the regime raided MEK safe houses, killing Massoud Rajavi's first wife...". As far as I see, the first event is missing here. -- M h hossein   talk 18:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a different proposal in mind. I will provide it shortly. Idealigic (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

CRP violation report
I was not really willing to make this report and prefered to resolve it without admin intervention. However, Idealigic is not willing for a compromise despite our efforts. It should be mention that Idealigic's previous violations were reported in the past, including here and here. Idealigic did not pay attention to our requests of self-revert (,, accompanied by VR's request on his talk page). Hence, I have to report his latest violation – I think it's his 3rd violation of CRP. Now, let's see the sequence of the edits: Idealigic was warned against being Tbaned by Vanamonde some months ago. Pinging for their attention. -- M h hossein   talk 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Longstanding version: This is the longstanding version of the lead before the new changes begin.
 * First change to the longstanding version happened by Stefka Bulgaria.
 * Objection to the first change was made by Vice Regent.
 * First change was partially changed by Vice Regent here, based on the objections brought to the article talk page. From now on, according to the WP:Consensus required restriction, any further repeat of the first change could not be carried out without consensus.
 * First change to the longstanding version was restored by Stefka Bulgaria, effectively violating the CRP restriction. Vice Regent objected the restoring of the content and went through the details of why Stefka Bulgaria's revert was not constructive. Vanamonde described Vice Regent's edit as being "very obviously helpful without changing content" and said that Stefka Bulgaria's objection was not "substantive" (Vanamnode also commented on usage of Saddam/Iraq which is not central to this report). As a result, Stefka Bulgaria's repeat of his new change to the longstanding version was not substantiated and he did not keep on discussing his points further (though he made a comment which was solely focused on usage of Saddam/Iraq and was not addressign VR's edit].
 * Given the fact that Vice Regent's suggestion was already backed by talk page discussion and Vanamonde's comment, and that there was no "substantiated" objection against his suggestion, he implemented the modified version later.
 * However, some hours later, Idealigic reverted back to the disputed version by Stefka Bulgaria, without making even a single comment on the talk page. That said, the revert by Idealigic is a clear violation of WP:CRP and should be taken seriously given the fact that he has shown similar behavior in the past.
 * I think El_C's insight can be very helpful given the fact that he proposed and developed the CRP guideline. -- M h hossein   talk 14:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am extremely busy in RL, and refuse to spend precious free time dealing with this mess. As y'all have exhausted El_C's patience too, I'd be surprised if he responds. AN is likely to be your only option; and there, too, if anyone wants uninvolved admins to look into this, you'd best leave out the walls of text. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Mhhossein’s report
This report by Mhhossein is deceptive and continued battleground behavior.

It was not me but who broke the article’s CRP restrictions (yet both  and  are trying to blame me for it):


 * [00:21, 3 May 2021] VR added to the article this:

and

This text that VR added never formed part of the previous longstanding version (you can check any version before May 1 2021). Additionally, consensus over the terminology (“Saddam vs Iraq” and “Iran vs IRI”) had not been achieved yet.


 * [12:58, 3 May 2021] Stefka reverted VR's edit with edit summary “Not an improvement. Reverting. See explanation in the TP”


 * [00:01, 8 June 2021] VR restored the disputed text to the article again:

and


 * [07:53, 8 June 2021] I revert VR’s edit explaining that “This is breach of the consensus required restriction...”.

Even though I later said to these editors that I’m not interested in reporting them and to stop with the distorted accusations, Mhhossein still reports me. Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For your information, replying to your first two sections. We are talking about this revert by you. I have stressed in my comment that "Saddam vs Iraq" is not central to my report, nor is whether Saddam supported MEK during the operations. You are specifically responsible for this revert. -- M h hossein   talk 15:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My June 8 revert was due to WP:Silent consensus. The last comment on my edit in general was Vanamonde saying it was "very obviously helpful" (but still objecting to "Saddam" vs "Iraq"). After that the only objections on talk were about the "Saddam" vs "Iraq" wording in context of Iran-Iraq war and I didn't restore that in my June 8 revert. No other aspect of my edit was objected to for more than month.VR talk 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing you both have said here points to a CRP violation by me. On the other hand, I have provided evidence that VR did make a CRP violation. That’s the gist of this “report”. Idealigic (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Mhhossein’s report
There are issues with Mhhossein’s report. It is confusing (I believe, on purpose in hopes of getting me topic-banned without just reason, which would not be the first time) and deceptive.


 * Mhhossein’s “First change to the longstanding version” diff does not specify which edit or text is disputed, but instead shows a combination of edits by Stefka (making the whole thing hard to follow).


 * Mhhossein’s “Objection to the first change was made [38] by Vice Regent” diff shows VR’s objections, but not the responses or counter-objections from other editors.


 * Mhhossein’s “First change to the longstanding version was restored by Stefka Bulgaria” diff. Mhhossein here is saying Stefka broke the restrictions, but Stefka only reverted VR’s edit, but like I showed above, the disputed text that VR added to the article never formed part of the then-lonstanding text:


 * Mhhossein’s “he [VR] implemented the modified version later.” claim is deceptive: VR restoring the same disputed text he tried to insert a month earlier is breaking the article’s CRP restrictions.

Briefly, I would like to tell you that 1) VR restored to a version which was described by Vanamonde as being helpful, 2) according to the moderating admin Stefka Bulgaria's objection was not "substantive" 3) You are specifically responsible for YOUR latest revert. Other things should be discussed separately. Anyway, to reach a compromise, will you perform a self revert to the "helpful" version? -- M h hossein   talk 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein’s “That said, the revert by Idealigic is a clear violation of WP:CRP” claim is deceptive: 1) VR restoring an edit that had been previously reverted is the “clear violation of WP:CRP” 2) The version I reverted to had been in the article for over a month, which means it now formed part of the longstanding version (per the consensus on this talk page) 3) numerous arguments had been presented in the talk page objecting the replacement of the words "Saddam vs Iraq” and “Iran vs IRI" (at least enough to merit a RfC to resolve the dispute). Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To reach a compromise
 * An important part of Vanamonde’s comment that you are both excluding is "Conversely, VR, you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular? I'm trying to AGF here, but the most obvious explanation is that "Saddam" has a negative emotional association that "Iraq" does not”


 * What then happened is that myself and other editors proceeded to discuss the different sources and issues about the terminology (first about “Saddam vs Iraq” and later about “Iran vs IRI”, terminology that is directly related to VR's edit). Just this alone was a clear indication that there was no Silent consensus (as VR is claiming) and that we had not arrived at a concluding consensus about the terminology (and even if there was any doubt about that, then VR should have asked before restoring reverted content). But then, [on June 7] VR just said he was going to “partially re-instate” his edits (restoring disputed and reverted material without asking anyone).


 * This is clearly a battleground report. Mhhossein even tried to blame Stefka of making CRP violation ( wasn’t even pinged). Idealigic (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your rejection of my request just made me hopeless. I think your comment best shows your confusion and I would consider it enough for taking admin action against you.
 * Regarding the Saddam vs. Iraq: That part of Vanamonde comment is not excluded in my report. Here I mentioned their comment ("Vanamnode also commented on usage of Saddam/Iraq which is not central to this report". I told you once more that ""Saddam vs Iraq" is not central to my report". You know why? Since VR's edit on 8 June is not touching 'Saddam vs. Iraq'. But, your edit, which is clear violation of CRP, is still reverting other "helpful" clarifications.
 * What happened next: If if we ignore the 'Saddam vs. Iraq' topic – which I showed is not central to the report of your violation – You did not even make a single comment on the changes by VR, but instead you kept on reverting. Moreover, VR has said told you this point: "...After that the only objections on talk were about the "Saddam" vs "Iraq" wording in context of Iran-Iraq war and I didn't restore that in my June 8 revert. No other aspect of my edit was objected to for more than month."
 * So, this is clear that you violated the CRP restriction. -- M h hossein   talk 11:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * your diffs are misleading. On May 3, I discussed 'shortening "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" is very common all over wikipedia, news and books.' 10 comments were made after that (including by Idealigic, Stefka, Vanamonde, TimesAreChanging and Mhhossein) but none objected to that particular shortening. After waiting a month, on June 7, I restored the wording. It is only after that Idealigic objected.VR talk 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

there is nothing misleading about my diffs.

On 20:04, 4 May 2021 said your edits (which had been reverted by Stefka) were helpful, but that "you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular?”. That shows you needed to provide some kind of explanation about why you wanted to change terminology (which you didn't provide).

The “IRI vs Iran” terminology issues in your edits were also objected to (by Stefka), but the “Saddam vs Iraq” terminology then became the focus of that thread. However a consensus was never determined about the use in the lead of either “IRI vs Iran” or “Iraq vs Saddam”.

Instead of opening a RfC or asking an admin (specially about content that had been reverted in an article with Consensus Required restrictions) you just restored your edit without checking or asking anyone.

And your edit consisted of changing "It was involved in" to "The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran:", and also "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings" to "After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress", and also “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris” to "after France expelled the MEK from Paris at Iran's request” (involving a mix of terminology that Stefka had objected to and that Vanamonde had asked you to explain). In your edit summary you wrote "Please note that my edit doesn't add or remove any content", which is also deceptive because you added the disputed terminology to the lead.

But the best part is that then you and join forces here twisting this around in the hopes of "admin action" against me for this CRP violation that you made (with Mhhossein also making an unsubstantiated drive-by CRP-VIO accusation against, you know, because why?). Idealigic (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Past CRP violations by Mhhossein

 * [diff]: Mhhossein uses deceptive edit summary (according to special:diff/969798085" - which is about "MEK's designation as a terrorist organization by the Japanese government") to add "Operation Shining Sun" to the lead of the article.
 * [diff]: I revert saying the source he used (The Globe Post) was not reliable.
 * [diff]: Without consensus, Mhhossein restored content using a new source (by Ronen Cohen, that by Vanamonde's own assessment, did not even support the edit).

Mhhossein did this despite prior warnings (such as this one, and actually did it more times). I also asked Mhhossein about it (a couple of times) but he never addressed it or admitted wrongdoing.

And another one:


 * [07:02, 18 January 2021] IP adds that France is allied of the MEK using tehrantimes source.


 * [17:02, 22 January 2021] reverts with edit summary “tehrantimes is not reliable source and tags need to be discussed”


 * [12:09 23 January 2021], Mhhossein put back the disputed text to the article

After Mhhossein is told to perform a self-revert (and self-reverted), he provided more sources trying to restore that France is an allied of the MEK, even though none of the sources support that contentious claim.

Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First case: My edit mainly refers to MEK designation by Japan and the edit summary is well describing it. As for other changes, I labeled a source which I had added in the previous edit, and restored “Operation shining sun” to the body based on that source. Yes, I agree it was better to mention all these changes in the summary. But, is it deception? As far as I see, Vanamonde's edit was not objecting my edit, rather it was correctly asking me to find a better source explicitly supporting the content. Needless to mention that the outcome of the OR noticeboard discussion further supported my position. Second case: As for the Case with BarcrMac, back then I self reverted and removed the content almost the same day it was objected. -- M h hossein   talk 14:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling
My biggest issue with Idealigic is that he is using CRP in combination with silly objections as a WP:STONEWALLING tactic. This is WP:SEALIONing and its causing so many users to get frustrated with lack of progress on this talk page.VR talk 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I (Vice regent) make an edit. Idealigic reverts it and repeatedly claims that I "expanded the lead". I point out that my edit actually made the lede shorter.
 * Idealigic now questions the sources for saying that Iraq was involved in MEK operations: "The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran" (where does it say that in the sources?). I provide quotes from WP:SCHOLARLY sources for that text (including those that were already in the article but Idealigic didn't bother to check).
 * Idealigic now claims this "is disputed" by providing either (i) sources that don't dispute this, or (ii) sources that dispute this but are not reliable (like Saddam's minister or the MEK itself). I point out that a book published by Harvard University Press is way more reliable than the statement of the Saddam regime, but Idealigic continues to insist his sources are ok.
 * I take this to WP:RSN, providing 10 quotes from 7 scholarly books. One uninvolved user agrees that my sources are strong enough to state Iraqi involvement in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. without any dispute). But Idealigic still continues to insist that his sources are equally reliable. That user responds that the view that Iraq wasn't involved "strains credibility".
 * If requested by an admin, I will respond to these accusations by VR and provide ample examples of stonewalling and WP:SEALIONing by VR and Mhhossein. Idealigic (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Idealigic: I suggest you to give more weight to this helpful comment by a neutral and uninvolved user from the RSN board. -- M h hossein   talk 17:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Kurds and the MEK in the lead
.

Should we remove from the lead "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." and explain in the body of the article what all POVS from reliable sources say about this disputed statement? - MA Javadi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - The sources I compiled here shows the disputed statement does not represent what all sides of the argument say about this. Because what is in the lead at this time does not represent all the reliable sources, I propose putting this information in an appropriate section within the body where the different narratives can be explained better. We can start a post-RFC discussion after this one about what would best reflect all the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: above I pointed out that some of the sources that MA Javadi provided don't even talk about "the 1991 nationwide uprisings." and MA Javadi admitted that some of the sources indeed "can’t be linked to the 1991 Uprisings." The rest of MA Javadi's also don't endorse the view that MEK wasn't involved in the 1991 uprisings, but merely report MEK's denial. Yet, Mhhossein provided 12 sources, including a source published by Oxford University Press, that state MEK's involvement in 1991 uprisings as a fact. Thus MA Javadi's argument is WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR talk 14:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. A statement that doesn't mirror the available sources is a misleading statement. That is the case here, where even the MEK's POV has been omitted from it. Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes It should be removed and be inserted in the body of the article where all the relevant sources are presented. Sea Ane (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. These "denies" you provided here are denied by sources which are more reliable than what you provided above. For example RAND report writes: MeK officials strenuously deny any involvement in the atrocities against the Shia and Kurds, alleging that they were attacked by combined Kurdish and Iranian forces and that the MeK did not even defend itself.22 However, the allegations of the group’s complicity with Saddam are corroborated by press reports that quote Maryam Rajavi encouraging MeK members to “take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,”23 as well as the timing of Saddam’s conferring the Rafedeen Medallion—a high honor in the Iraqi military—on Masoud Rajavi. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. There are many sources which show that the MEK helped Saddam to suppress the Kurds. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. per Cherrypicking. Some editors here seem to be Cherrypicking their preferred information from sources and then excluding other information (often from the same sources) to shape the narrative of the article. This does not belong in the lead because the sources show this is contentious and disputed. Move it to the body and explain all supported views there. Barca (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also per per Cherrypicking. This is disputed, so it does not belong in the lead (even less written as fact). Also per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead is too long, so this is something it could do without. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: I support the "Follow-up proposal" (below) as the first choice, but in case that doesn't receive consensus, I support this proposal too. That's also based on Cherrypicking and MOS:LEADLENGTH (like Alex-h said above in their vote). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let us take a look at Cherrypicking: "It means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Can I ask what do you think is contradictory here? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good and meaningful question. What is being cherry picked here? -- M h hossein   talk 06:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up proposal
Should we remove from the lead the sentence "It was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."?


 * Yes. The previous sentence already mentions "taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic", so the core of that information is already in the lead. Also the lead is too long as many have already said. Idealigic (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are proposals proposed here aimed at removing the things which are negative for MEK? -- M h hossein   talk 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: Doesn't the previous sentence already say that the MEK took part in several operations against the Islamic Republic? Isn't the lede too long? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not name the operations which are critical for the lead. -- M h hossein   talk 14:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just linked the part about "taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic" to the operations; so that's sorted. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Stefka Bulgaria: When there is a section in the article arguing the operations, then we should at least have the names of the operations in the Lede. Why don't you instead propose removing a long quotation like he MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists", which have no link and is not important enough to devote a section to it? Why should we remove the usual links from the Lede and replace it with unusual ones? Again I refer you to this discussion if you really want to see which parts of the article should be removed. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes: Per Idealigic: The lede is too long and needs to be summarised, and "taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic" is already mentioned in the lede (now with a link to the details of the operations). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you have discussed this topic before bringing it to RFC. I think this is an example of incorrect usage of RFC in this page (: FYI). -- M h hossein   talk 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Visual guide to the CRP violation (No bludgeoning plz)
Given the fact that the previous report was turned into a real mess by Idealigic, I have tabulated the most important things here:

Idealigic was asked to perform a self revert multiple times (,, , and ) but he did not accept the requests. He never discussed the above changes before/after his reverts (Saddam vs. Iraq is not central to this dispute). M h hossein  talk 13:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Rough word count of each section
In order to determine which sections need the most trimming we have to consider two things: 1) how much coverage are we giving the topic and 2) how much coverage a topic receives in literature. I'm doing #1 here: VR talk 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead: 639 words
 * Other names: 139 words
 * History: 8457 words
 * Overview: 1365 words
 * Founding: 575 words
 * Schism: 801 words
 * Political phase: 610 words
 * Conflict with the Islamic Republic: 2333 words
 * Post-war Saddam era: 731 words
 * Post-U.S. invasion of Iraq: 1169 words
 * Settlement in Albania: 790 words
 * Ideology: 2124 words
 * Membership: 387 words
 * Designation as a terrorist organization: 1103 words
 * Designation as a cult: 342 words
 * Assassinations: 681 words
 * Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK: 1067 words
 * Assassination of MEK members outside Iran: 268 words
 * Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK: 457 words
 * Ties to foreign and non-state actors: 260 words
 * Intelligence and operational capabilities: 254 words
 * Propaganda campaign: 469 words
 * Human rights record: 809 words
 * Fundraising: 494 words
 * Perception: 654 words
 * Thanks VR, but how can we determine #2? I believe it's not that easy. Do you have any suggestions? -- M h hossein   talk 04:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what does policy say in terms of how much size we are giving to each section? It seems WP:WEIGHT should guide that discussion? (an admin) said seemed to favor using sources that give a broad overview to determine weight. If so, we can first compile a list of such sources and use them.VR talk 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, WP:DUE is the relevant policy. Someguy is of course correct that broad sources are best to determine due weight; media sources and very specific analyses are useful for detail, but less useful for determinining due weight (of course, some recent details may only be covered in media sources). Specifics of how long each section should be are a content-decision that I will not comment on. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * do you have any opinion on this?VR talk 01:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added Section sizes to the talk page (see above) so you can track this more conveniently. MarioGom (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment (Assassinations)
Should we move the information in "Assassinations" so that it reads chronologically within the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion regarding this move is ongoing in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran where the OP failed to answer the last question. RFCs should not be misused as Shortcuts for reaching goals. -- M h hossein   talk 12:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca your proposal is unclear. Are you proposing to put all the assassinations in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Even MEK-linked assassinations that took place before 1981 and after 1988? Please clarify.VR talk 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the incidents in the section "Assassinations" fall within the scope of "1981-1988 conflicts with the Islamic Republic". Like I said already the problem with the current "Assassinations" section is that none of the conflicts between the MEK and Islamic Republic provide information about the context of these conflicts (the context of these conflicts are given in the section "1981-1988 conflicts with the Islamic Republic"). Context is important, so it makes sense to have all the information (with context) in the same section instead of having hints of information scattered throughout the article where the reader is forced to look at different sections to get the full information. Barca (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again you didn't answer the questions:
 * Should MEK-linked assassinations before 1981 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"?
 * Should MEK-linked assassinations after 1988 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"?VR talk 04:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes - the problem is that currently we have a section with information about attacks between the MEK and the Islamic Republic but the section doesn't have any context about the attacks ("Assassinations"), and then we have another section with information about the context of the attacks, but the section does not mention the attacks ("Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"). Having all the information in one section provides better context for the reader. Barca (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't see why not. Since I have been involved here, "chrono order" has been something that's been constantly applied in this article, and having two separate sections in different parts of the article about the same incidents (as it is now) doesn't make any sense. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it doesn't make sense to have information about the same topic spread in different sections throughout the article. This forces the reader to piece together bits of information from different parts of the article to get a general idea of what happened. That's the wrong way to layout an article. All the information about a topic should go in a single section about that topic. Idealigic (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It was obvious form the very beginning, that you don't like the "Assassination" title (as you didn't like the "Cult" one) so you started to empty the section from its content,(via your smart job ) so that you could omit the title. I reverted and warned you, but you, instead of building consensus(You did not answer the last two questions here), brought the case here. I am repeating my question again: You are saying the "Assassinations" section doesn't have any context about the attacks. Could you name the contexts related to assassinations, one by one? Then we can discuss which information are related together, and would decide on moving them to the section they belong. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No As per Ghazaalch; of note, if the sources are going to be the criteria, as a result, a stand alone section --or factually subsection-- is considered to be well justified. We have a separate page for this List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran; so, why not having a section for it. I believe that Mhhossein also mentioned a true point that "The discussion regarding this move is ongoing". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The section "Assassinations" is a real mess and the main reason for this is that there is no context to the information like Barca says. It mentions a couple of bombings, but why did the bombings happen? What were the incidents that led to them? What happened after? All this goes beyond just "Assassinations", this was a Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988), so put that information there. Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you name the "contexts" and "reasons" which you say led to the assassinations, if there is a reason, beyond the fact that MeK wants to overthrow the Islamic republic of Iran. And if there is really such a reasons, why shouldn't we move them to the "Assassinations" section? The answer is easy. You don't like the title above the section (as you don't like the "cult" one), and want to remove it.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch: all you need to do is read the section Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) (the first clue is in the section title):










 * There is more information there but I don't want to bludgeon this RFC. But it's clear that this describes the escalation and conflicts between the MeK and the clerics. To mention the bombings without any context of the conflicts between the MeK and the Islamic Republic is very confusing and misleading . Alex-h (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Assassination" and "conflict" are two different words which are used differently.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: Per Alex-h's comprehensive analysis above, which shows that information clearly belongs in the Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: I think organizing the sections is a good idea. But MEK's assassination campaign stretches several historical periods. The MEK was conducting assassinations before the 1979 revolution, then during the 1980s and, according to several reliable sources, even recently. So how can we pigeon-hole something that spans several historical periods into one section?VR talk 00:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer: There is a whole article already dedicated to this, see List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran. We don't need more articles or article sections. One section where all the information is shown is all that's needed.Barca (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should remove the sections for which we have a page? Per which policy or guideline? -- M h hossein   talk 17:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No response to my question? -- M h hossein   talk 06:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is no guideline for removing sections if there is an standalone article. It's actually the opposite, see: The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. (WP:SUMMARY). MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an editorial-based suggestion for the purpose of good organizational and writing principles. This RFC proposes putting all the information in the same section and outlined chronologically so that it be less confusing for the reader and so that the information is presented with context (a more complete manner). "Context matters tremendously". Barca (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment shows we should not remove this important section. You say "all the information [should be] in the same section", but assassination and terrorist attack targets of MEK did not include only Iranian people. Moreover, according to reliable sources, they are suspected of being involved in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists (which apparently does not have any specific context). So, this notable topic should not be removed. -- M h hossein   talk 12:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are talking about rumours that have not been confirmed. This RFC is clear that it talks about the section "Assassinations", and how all of the incidents named in that section fit within the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section (which provides context to all the incidents). Barca (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, those American people attacked by MEK were citizens of Islamic Republic government? How about those who where killed by MEK during the Shah era? Were they citizens of IRI? -- M h hossein   talk 12:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein you really should read the article and comments here with more attention. I must repeat once again This RFC talks about the section "Assassinations", and how all of the incidents named in that section fit within the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section. The controversies with the American people is in the section "Schism (1971–1979)" (where the Department of State attributs the assassinations to Peykar), and the MEK playing an active role in the downfall of the Shah is already covered in the "History" section. All the content in the "Assassinations" section is relevant to the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section. Barca (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You really need to read the history of MEK. The bitter fact is that MEK is fully responsible for assassination American personnel ("The MEK advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970's.") They did the same to the officials of Shah government. Those are Assassinations carried out by MEK. -- M h hossein   talk 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No. The purpose of the RFC is unclear. There seems to be several misunderstandings of editing guidelines in previous rationales. MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think the purpose of the RFC is clear: put incidents in the section where context is provided. I agree with Barca that context matters (the attacks and counter attacks did not happen out of spite but the were a result of escalating incidents). That is not clear right now in the article. Ypatch (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this RFC is to Remove the 'Assassination' section (which has a stand alone article!!!). There are serious issues and unanswered questions like those asked by Vice Regent . -- M h hossein   talk 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are the answers you are seeking: "Should MEK-linked assassinations before 1981 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Answer: NO. "Should MEK-linked assassinations after 1988 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Answer: NO. All the content in the "Assassinations" section is relevant to the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section. I thought this was clear already. This has been repeated many times, so I won't repeat it anymore. Barca (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Assassinations section should adequately summarize List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, adding further commentary if necessary. Maybe merging it with the Assassination of MEK members outside Iran section. IMHO this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. MarioGom (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the answers to this question could be that; having different sections with different/special titles make the article more interesting and more readable. The other answer could be that the readers are not interested in reading all the article. They want to pick the information they need as soon as possible. Now the other question arise here is that why some people insist on merging the sections; starting from Cult section, continuing with Assassination one, and so on? Ghazaalch (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * what is the purpose of having different sections in an article in the first place? why don't we merge them all in one section? Isn't it true that all the sections in an article are somehow related together? So why don't we merge them all? Why don't we arrange them all in chronological order? why we should have different sections?