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

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility and Truth
Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Behavioral standards
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

At wit's end
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

At wit's end: Walls of text
In cases where the Arbitration Committee has difficulty in determining fault for disruptive editing due to walls of text posted by civil POV pushers, the Committee may conclude that the verbosity of the posts has itself been disruptive, and may impose sanctions on the responsible editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * (Not having read the principles above this) On the one hand yes, it is true that walls of text can be an issue in and of themselves. On the otherhand, ArbCom is charged with going to gain an understanding of an issue that the community cannot be expected to do. It's limited somewhat by diff and word count limits but it remains on obligation of ArbCom's, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Barkeep here. I think walls of text is more an issue in community processes, but frankly when it comes to ArbCom it's more a detriment to someone's argumentation rather than a strength (especially since at a practical level it means less evidence can fit.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * We need this in response to the correct observation that the excessive quantity of verbiage on talk pages makes it difficult to assess fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I agree that the verbose talk page was a barrier to participation. Certainly, when I did post, for example on RfCs, I was not inclined to go through the entire talk page. On the other, I don't like the idea of sanctioning people for behavior that at the time was permitted. Perhaps any sanctions based solely on the quantity of talk page participation be confined to restricting the quantity of the user's talk page participation? I'm not actually sure about that; just throwing the idea out there. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Walls of text' was repeatedly used a strategy to halt/stop the discussions from being concluded. I have provided some evidences which suggest such a pattern. I believe this should be taken seriously because some of the remedies suggested here, if approved, can be vulnerable to this strategy. -- M h hossein   talk 13:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Requests for Comments
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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruption of RFCs
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * All the forms of disruption mentioned by Robert should be sanctioned, wherever they may happen, whether at RfCs or on non-RfC discussion on any talk page.VR talk 13:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scope of disruption
1) The scope of disruption is People's Mujahedin of Iran MEK, broadly construed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am beginning my thorough examination of the evidence. While not complete it is not clear to me that this issue really extends to all post-1978 Iranian politics. So I put this here for reaction. Is this the right scope? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) is the changed statement accurate to your knowledge? I want to make sure I understand the scope - and if there is disruption outside MEK to give time for evidence to be presented of such - because that will impact what kind of remedies are appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * one reason I posted my question when I did was to try to allow time for people to present evidence that show wider disruption. I hope you are able to find some time in the next few days before that phase closes to show some diffs of similar issues elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the fact that MEK is a DAB is something I noticed as well and why I originally listed People's Mujahedin. I'm guessing in the end we'll do something like MEK when referring to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The scope really is the MEK, primarily on the People's Mujahedin of Iran page, as attested by the large amount of presented diffs in evidence. Over the years, there has been some spillover to MEK-related pages like Maryam Rajavi, National Council of Resistance of Iran, or National Iranian American Council (MEK opponents), to name a few, but the scale of disruption elsewhere is not even close to the People's Mujahedin of Iran page. MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I think so. The outcome would need to be prepared for foreseeable spillover to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran (no edit warring since 2019 though),, or an hypothetical History of People's Mujahedin of Iran. MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others), I think the scope of the matter expands to topics surrounding the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-present). Articles include IRI-affiliated institutions, protests in Iran, government figures, political oppositions, etc. There are a lot of diffs to go through, but I’ll try my best to compile a concise and clear report soon. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going to expand the scope, we might as well also include Talk:Religion in Iran, where there was a lot of debate on whether Iran is a Muslim-majority country (here and here) and edit-warring over how much weight to give alternative theories.VR talk 01:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've confined my evidence largely to the MEK, because that's where the disruption has been most evident. There have been equally nasty exchanges on numerous other pages; those have just not last as long. The ones I'm aware of include Ruhollah Khomeini; Maryam Rajavi; Women's rights in Iran; Hafte tir bombing; Qasem Soleimani; 2017–2018 Iranian protests; and a few others. I could if necessary try to present some evidence. We're focused on the MEK because that's where the conflict between this particular set of editors has been focused, not because the issues in the broader topic are confined to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I've just read through the October–December 2020 discussions at Talk:Religion in Iran VR linked to above, and the WP:CPUSH issues there were pretty incredible. Basically, a fringe source called GAMAAN claims, contra the grand ensemble of reliable sources, that only one-third of Iranians are Shia Muslims (all RS put it at 90%+), yet several experienced and well-respected editors insist on defending its reliability. When confronted with the fact that GAMAAN flatly contradicts some of the most widely cited sources in the field, e.g. Pew Research Center, one of them reacts by ... questioning the reliability of the latter, and demanding at length that its reliability be proven! Sure, it can all be read as good-faith incompetence, but it would be strictly impossible without some pretty strenuous POVs steering things in the background. Yes, they are different editors, but the root cause is the same: strong opinions on Iranian politics. This definitely seems like a little brother or sister to American politics, and should probably be treated that way. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * MEK is a DAB page, and some sort of qualification is needed in the proposed wording. To me and probably other chemists also, the best-known meaning of MEK is methyl ethyl ketone. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For me, it's mostly a matter of convinicnece as well as it being shorthand that I've been accustomed to (pre-wiki). Like when I use Shabak (DAB page) for the Shin Bet or Aman (DAB page) for Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel), and so on. El_C 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
''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)

Sectioned RfCs
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators
 * This needs a bunch of wordsmithing and refinement but hopefully gets the idea across. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Spitballing a bit: How about allowing uninvolved admins to mandate (as a DS) a structure like the former WP:RFC/U process? Not the certification requirement and all that business, but rather something like this:
 * Separate into two main sections, for "involved" and "uninvolved" participants.
 * Within the involved section:
 * Involved editors initiating the RfC collectively write a statement expressing their perspective, including a desired outcome and a description of the issue.
 * Involved editors opposing the initiators' perspective collectively write a statement in response.
 * The RfC doesn't begin until these statements are written, in good faith. That is, the "involved" section will primarily be developed pre-RfC.
 * During the RfC, uninvolved editors may write "uninvolved views" (usually several paragraphs long, setting forth their view of the dispute and its proper resolution). Other uninvolved editors may "endorse" those views. (For reference, RFC/U rules: 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.
 * The RfC is closed with everyone's participation considered on an equal basis, regardless of whether they're involved or uninvolved.
 * I have no idea if this is a good idea or just stupid. RFC/U was disbanded but if I recall correctly it wasn't because of the structure; it was because it was toothless (unable to impose sanctions), just viewed as a stepping stone to ArbCom, and inefficient (but possibly better for "certain kind of disputes"). This can be a process with tooth, able to establish consensus just like any RfC. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The intent here is to facilitate discussion, to allow uninvolved editors to substantively participate (instead of the same group of editors over and over) by presenting the issues clearly, to better platform uninvolved voices, and to require pre-RfC conferral so everyone is on the same page about how the dispute should be presented. Ultimately, it's possible that the best solution is to do everything we can to encourage uninvolved participation without creating such strong incentives for increased socking in accounts that pretend to be uninvolved. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the hope is that any effortful parts of this system will be placed on the involved editors, with the result being that uninvolved editors have an easier time because getting up to speed is much more reasonable (certainly in comparison with the current RfCs). KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have all the answers and am open to being convinced. However, I don't think it's impossible to write a statement collectively with others who share a viewpoint. Why can't we require that all "involved" parties to an RfC who share a viewpoint discuss in good faith and agree to a single statement, and leave it to an enforcing administrator to determine if some editors are not collaborating in good faith? I can see there may be difficulties – what would they be from your perspective? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little reluctant to adopt the structure of a failed process even if the process failed for reasons other than its structure. The pre-RFC work however is intriguing for me. In some ways I would prefer to define "involved" outside of RFC participation because (ideally) some number of issues get resolved through consensus with the broader community only needing to be called in for the thorniest issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So where I think I've landed on Kevin's suggestion is that it's a good one. However it is one that would require active admin attention to work before the RfC and I don't think we can/should count on that. So I would be supportive of an admin deciding to make that happen, through their delegated DS power, but would be opposed to passing it as an arbcom remedy. This contrasts with the simpler sectioned RfC piece which any participant could make happen when setting up the RfC (or if done by someone who doesn't know better, shortly after the RfC launches by just about anyone). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties
 * RFC bludgeoning in that talk page often happens when editors, instead of voting, open new discussions (within the RFC ) or downplay opposing votes (e.g. ). If other editors respond to these, then that tends to trigger further bludgeoning; and if they don’t respond, then the opposing camp often claim the RfC was not properly closed because their concerns were not addressed (e.g. ). A Catch 22 situation that the RFC closer ends up having to deal with. Ideally, Sectioned RFCs would help solve this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * KevinL: The suggested method of having sectioned RFCs is good, but I believe the pre-RFC phase is of a greater importance. I don't know if you are concerned that pre-RFC was originally suggested here, with the difference that the "pre-RFC" phase suggested at the time was meant to be a "brainstorming session" aimed at avoiding super-trim RFCs by working "together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable." -- M h hossein   talk 13:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What has been proposed here thus far would make great improvements to that talk/page (on various levels). Some further thoughts /concerns:
 * ° I wonder what would define an editor as “uninvolved”? (or maybe this isn't important?)


 * ° During the pre-RFC process, there may be objections that adhere to policy (also possible mask for stonewalling) to prevent a RFC (that also adheres to policy) from taking place. When this happens, would there be a determining factor that prevents a RFC from being initiated?


 * ° Once the RFC has been closed, if opposing editors still feel their points were not addressed (either during the pre-RfC or during the RfC phase), a clause determining how much they can complain about it would make things easier on the RfC closer (and the community). Maybe a restriction of one complaint/question to the RfC closer, and then an option to take matters to AN (if they find it necessary) would help, but I leave it to ArbCom to decide.


 * ° Aspersions and downplaying others' votes/input during these RFC processes should be addressed since that is clearly disruptive (triggers bludgeoning and foments an WP:UNCIVIL / WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere). Also false accusations of aspersions / harassment / attacks should be equally addressed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As for involved I'd prefer applying Vanamonde's original definition of "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)
 * But we still need to determine how each side should draft their points "collectively" into "a statement". In my opinion, this would determine how applicable the suggestion would be. -- M h hossein   talk 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * KevinL: Hello, I am still unable to realize how this idea is going to be applied. I am specifically asking about the "a statement" being drafted "collectively" by each side. How do you think it can be implemented? -- M h hossein   talk 04:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look Kevin, I like the idea behind your suggestion. Actually I am asking about the details on how this is going to happen in practice – this does not mean I don't believe the participants should be able to work for consensus to be built. For instance:
 * – If there are more than two ideas to be discussed, should we have more than two sections?
 * – Where should 'each side' draft their collective statement?
 * – There should naturally be discussions and back & forth between the editors in each camp which happens on the talk page. Should users from other camps be banned from participating in the opposite camp's talkpage discussion?
 * – In light of the previous discussion, does not this encourage puppetry? I have already expressed my concerns regarding this problem here.
 * – Should we consider a word limit for the statements?
 * These questions may be due to my lack of experience with regard to the Arb cases. I don't know if the details of the remedies should be discussed here. -- M h hossein   talk 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others
 * I like this idea. I think our RfC participation problem is a small part of the larger whole, but not a trivial part. I find myself wondering if a batch of related RfC options might not be the worst idea. How about "Editors who have made substantial content edits related to the topic of an RfC, broadly construed" for the first bit? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I like Kevin's idea too, in principle; and I think it would be a useful tool to give admins. I would be willing to try to moderate such a process in this topic. I worry that if we raise the barrier to entry for uninvolved folks, we may not attract the participation we need. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a strong argument, thanks. I would find such a structure very useful. I would suggest one further requirement when implementing this structure: that, when involved editors are engaged in making such proposals, they are bound by the WP:NOR policy. We've always been a little wishy-washy with respect to original research on talk pages; our policy page says it doesn't apply, for instance, but we've quite often treated it as a form of disruptive editing. I have personally often applied or recommended sanctions when an editors on talk pages consistently cite sources for content that those sources clearly do not support. IMHO we should require the proposals  from involved editors to strictly adhere to NOR, so uninvolved editors do not have to check whether the proposed changes are supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, if editors know they can be sanctioned for playing fast-and-loose with sources during RfCs, their behavior is also likely to improve.  To make such a requirement practical, I think we'd have to allow for involved editors to challenge each others use of sources while the RfC is being crafted: and to keep the process fair, I think demonstrably false accusations of source misuse should be just as sanctionable as source misuse itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, the trouble is that discussions on this page involving all parties go nowhere, and none of you have shown the ability to craft proposals that "both sides could find palatable". The strength of L235's proposal is that each "side" would craft a proposal independent of the other, thereby avoiding the usual stonewalling. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is interesting, although details can be a bit tricky. I see I could fall in the uninvolved or involved categories myself, depending on how they are defined. If I fall into the involved category, how would it work? I would check the initial position of RFC proposers, and then decide if I want to support or oppose it, and then contribute to the drafting of the "picked side"? Would I still retain the right to not endorse any of the two initial statements and participate in the uninvolved section? Would some people (e.g. parties to this dispute) be mandated by ArbCom to pick one of the drafting sides, or not participate at all? MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeat RfC moratorium
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators
 * I'm curious what others think about this idea - I'm not sure myself what I think. The intent is to try to break the RfCs that don't seem to go anywhere in this topic area and provide an incentive to reach consensus outside of RfCs (something that seems to be sorely lacking in this topic area but which can be found in other, even heavily contentious, topic areas). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a bad idea, but I think ultimately is treating the symptoms, not the causes. RfC moratoria are generally most appropriate when the actual filing of the RfCs is abusive or done in bad faith. For example, RM moratoria are sometimes imposed in order to tamp down on repeat RMs when the underlying question has been settled; in these cases, the actual filing of the RM is abusive because it is attempting to circumvent consensus. However, my sense is that MEK RfCs are filed most of the time in good faith, and the problem is that RfCs don't actually come to a useful result. In these cases, the repeat RfC moratorium is perhaps a good interim measure but much more important is trying to address the underlying problem with the consensus process in this topic. I could be convinced otherwise, though. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties
 * I like this idea and prefer a lot longer than 90 days. This example I gave was already 90 days, so can I suggest a year? Discussion at Talk:MEK moves slower than other talk pages. On a somewhat related note, we really need to focus on summarizing the article and making it readable. I tried doing that repeatedly but people were too busy arguing over POV issues to even respond. It would be helpful to have a moratorium on POV RfCs until the article is cleaned up.VR talk 23:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Barkeep49's RfC moratorium proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others

Scholarly sources preferred
1) Scholarly sources should be given more weight than news articles. The following are some examples of indication of scholarship: publication by a reputable university press, publication in a reputable and peer-review journal, a high number of citations, etc. When in doubt, the degree of reliability of a source should be determined at WP:RSN (to get the community's attention).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * That would be a great improvement but still needs to be discussed more. I was just thinking of how age can be significant here. Should the new sources be preferred over the new ones when both are of similar qualities? I guess fresh sources are most likely more accurate but this can simply be objected by those who say old sources have the advantage of containing the initial accounts –even though those accounts later turn out to be false/inaccurate. -- M h hossein   talk 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph at WP:AGE MATTERS gives some pros and cons of both old and new historical sources. But I don't want this principle to be overcomplicated. Had we applied this principal months/years ago at Talk:MEK, a lot of drama could have been avoided.VR talk 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Based on my experience in the DS areas Holocaust in Poland and Kurds, this is one of the most effective tools in the toolkit. We can eliminate a lot of POV pushing by requiring scholarly sources (except for breaking news of course) because limiting the scope to scholarly sources makes mainstream/fringe divisions apparent. Levivich 12:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Weight should be determined by broad overview sources
2) When trying to determine weight given to a particular section (or subtopic) in the article, a useful indicator is to consider the weight given to this in reliable sources that give a broad overview of the topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Also see this previous discussion and NPOVN discussion. Determining how many words to allot a particular section in the article has been a thorny issue. My proposal is based on previous comments by and . Anyone: if you feel this is not a good proposal please offer alternative suggestions.VR talk 16:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a question that I've struggled with on other topics. This comment by at MEK talk page:
 * The way I interpreted the comment is that we use reliable secondary sources to establish upper and lower limits of what the length should be (as a percentage of article size) and within those limits the section length is an editorial decision. But how exactly do we analyze secondary sources to determine the upper and lower limits?VR talk 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The way I interpreted the comment is that we use reliable secondary sources to establish upper and lower limits of what the length should be (as a percentage of article size) and within those limits the section length is an editorial decision. But how exactly do we analyze secondary sources to determine the upper and lower limits?VR talk 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't know if this is a principle ARBCOM will be willing to pass, given that it's verging on a purely content matter. However, as a general principle for editing, I think this is crucial, and I believe I have said as much on Talk:MEK. For large and contentious topics with a variety of source material discussing specific aspects in great detail, it's common for several problems to crop up; violations of NOTNEWS, excessive detail on controversy, excessive detail about the best-known aspects, and perhaps most crucially, editors trying to shape the article based on what they think they know, rather than what the sources say. That last is a common problem even at venues like FAC, so it's unsurprising that we see it here; but it's still something we've to deal with. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with everything Van wrote, which I think reflects global consensus on the matter. I think this would be a useful principle for Arbcom to include in the PD. Levivich 12:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

DUE should be determined by opinions of sources, not editors
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think discussions on what is DUE weight should be guided by references to sources, not personal opinions.VR talk 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Polling is not a substitute for discussion
4) Content disputes must be resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, as per Polling is not a substitute for discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As Levivich implied, often times disputes are resolved, or at the very least narrowed down, through discussion.VR talk 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Scholarly source restriction
1) A sanction is created such that, in whichever discussion this sanction is applied, only scholarly sources may be used in that discussion. Arbs authorize admins to apply this restriction, at the admins' discretion, in WP:DSTOPICS (esp at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Arbs previously considered a source restriction applied by to be reasonable here.VR talk 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * FWIW, I imposed that restriction because we had editors who were denying current scholarship and supporting their assertions with in some cases primary sources that were 70+ years old, and editors at that article were at their wits' end, and it was the best I could come up with at the time to stop that disruption. I think this kind of restriction could be useful but would need to be carefully crafted -- for instance, to require scholarly sources for any assertion/about a period for which there were ample scholarly sources. For recent developments there may not be scholarly sources yet.
 * I feel like this solution should be used rarely, in order to protect administrators and well-intentioned editors who are nearing their wits' end. This seems like such a case. —valereee (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agreed with this when Val did it in Kurds and when it was done in the Poland case (which I believe was the inspiration for doing it in Kurds). Arbcom should think of creating a "standard sanction" for this similar to what was done for the 30/500 thing, so that admins can apply this in DS areas where/as needed. Making it standard will help with problems arising from the specific wording used. Levivich 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

RfCs to be closed solely on strength of arguments
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an interesting idea but I'm a bit dubious about how it'd work in practice. How would this work? Would RfCs be merely advisory to the closer? This would be a pretty fundamental shift. What would be grounds for challenging the closure at AN? Wouldn't this merely shift the problem to challenges of the closes? And, can we reasonably say that after closing an RfC like this, the closer will still be uninvolved for future disputes? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The problem of RfCs being manipulated by puppets is obvious (,, , , myself all have implied it). Obvious solutions have not worked:
 * 500/30 is WP:GAMEd. Eg. See what TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda (both who vote at MEK RfCs) did: Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs.
 * Puppetry can take long to detect (if at all). Eg. User:Saff V. (eventually determined to be a sock) was active at Talk:MEK for more than a year. He was not detected by this checkuser. User:DirectAttrition was active for 5 months before being discovered.
 * Then there is a problem of users voting at RfCs without carefully reading, see Battleground RfCs. Something needs to be done. I would love to hear others' ideas.VR talk 18:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your consideration. I meant RfCs would still be the same (if consensus was found they'd be binding, not merely advisory). Grounds for challenging would be if the closer misapplied policy, misread sources etc. I'm fine if a closure challenge (at WP:AN) is concluded based on a headcount of admins (and this arbitration case findings will be based on head counts of arbs) - that's because I'm confident that admins are knowledgeable about policy, will carefully examine all arguments, and aren't meat/sockpuppets. And I think that an admin can determine that an argument does not reflect RS, and still remain uninvolved.VR talk 01:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Mainly uninvolved here (beyond SPI, cleaning up after socks), so feel free to disregard my opinion. While I admire the sentiment behind Vice regent's proposal, I don't think it could work in practice due to two main problems. One, it places a sanction or special procedure on the uninvolved RfC closer, potentially driving away RfC closers from this fraught topic area (if they aren't driven already by the ruckus). Two, it places the closer in a situation where he is casting a Supervote. Certainly a closer can ignore non-policy !votes in a close, but what if both sides present a position that is plausible within policy? The closer using the strength of argument approach would be closing on their personal opinion. Socking has been an issue in this area, evident in SPIs, but some other solution (protection?) should be used to minimise it.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the need to address the broken RfCs, but I'm not sure this is a good thing to mandate. Several thoughts; first, this is broadly policy already; RfCs are not a vote. Second, it's quite often the case that both sides of an argument have a basis in policy; as such this mandate would require "no consensus" closures very often, which would not be an improvement on the current state of affairs. Third, if editors are misquoting and/or misrepresenting sources, that is a sanctionable offense in and of itself. It's unfortunately not something we're very good about sanctioning, because it requires admins to check the sources, but I have placed multiple sanctions in this topic alone for source misrepresentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already what we do, or what we're supposed to do. Perhaps rather than making any new rule, arbcom can simply remind the community of this in a principle. Levivich 12:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with concerns raised by others here. The large majority of positions (not sure how to use !votes, (!)votes, votes, here) on both sides will be policy backed. There will likely be some on each side that are not. This methodology would make it very hard for the closer to do so fairly and without supervoting (or at least appearing to do so). Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-prejudicial removal from discussion
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sometimes its obvious there's a problem, but not obvious who to blame. This remedy's non-prejudicial nature means it can be used in response to good faith mistakes and it doesn't violate WP:NEWBIES. pointed out they gave many "forceful reminders". But would it have been better to remove the user from the discussion instead? VR talk 16:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Mechanism to seek admin attention on content disputes
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).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Unless I am misunderstanding, once we pass remedies, WP:AE would fulfill this function. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are describing, one user derailing a discussion by refusing to discuss the actual topic at hand, sounds like a behavioral problem to me. I don't think arbcom can or should invent a whole new process. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * After some discussion between, and I, this is what we came up with. It was motivated by similar CPUSH issues in American-politics (this prior discussion). The need for admin attention is, by definition, required for the use of discretionary sanctions. A mechanism for seeking such attention is needed because neither WP:AN nor WP:ANI are for content disputes.VR talk 19:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand AE much, but it was argued AE requires significant evidence of misbehavior and is not for resolving content disputes. Where could I post something like "hey this discussion on X keeps derailing because users keep talking about Y, can an admin help with moderating this?" VR talk 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * understood. A related question I have is what if users on a page have policy related questions very specific to that page? For example, there were disagreements about which edit violated WP:CRP and a clear answer could not be obtained from WP:CRP, nor WP:AN.VR talk 15:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vice regent: I think your question has merit since this arbitration case was triggered when we tried to report a CRP violation – and no reply has arrived yet. Had there been an answer to our queries from boards like NPOV and RSN, the matters would settle down to some lines of easy-to-follow discussion. But we should also consider that even 3rd opinions coming from those boards were ignored sometimes. -- M h hossein   talk 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Moderator
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.
 * The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
 * The Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
 * The Moderator is authorized to sanction editors for disrupting the process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * ArbCom has appointed moderators for a one-time RfC. What would be needed here is something else and I would be reluctant to create a fixed pool of people. Instead I think any admin has this authority under DS already and so it's about an admin choosing to utilize it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it would be useful but I am not sure it's a scalable and sustainable solution. It is likely DS will be proposed. If that happens WP:AE will open which is a way of attracting administrator attention for some issues - though less the proactive/monitoring role mentioned here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * An ArbCom appointed moderator was one of the features of a successful resolution to a thorny content dispute: Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Polite pings to and  - current arbs who supported that motion (the three bullets are copy-and-pastes from that motion). At Talk:MEK, Vanamonde's moderation has been very helpful and I have a feeling that is one thing we can all  agree upon.VR talk 03:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. But in that case ArbCom seems to have leveraged their network to find admins for a content dispute. How can users find moderators? El_C pointed out that "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)
 * I also think VR's suggestion has merit and should be seriously considered during the decision phase. For instance, as explained here, had the RFC been monitored by an admin, 8 users would not be supporting something that does not exist in sources at all . Maybe it is a partial response to your question, i.e. the RFCs should be monitored so that they are in track. I believe we may adopt a plausible method for resolving this issue. -- M h hossein   talk 04:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

One-reply-per-editor RfCs
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think this is an interesting idea. Whether or not it's the right idea circles back to my question below of why RfCs keep failing because this would seem to suggest that it's some degree of bludgeoning which is causing the failure. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * remember that time you told Stefka his proposal was a misquotation. He gave a response, which you found unsatisfactory, so you told him again (after which he changed it). Under this proposal your second comment would be disallowed. I definitely agree that WP:WALLSOFTEXT is a real problem and lets keep brainstorming.VR talk 12:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * that would work, if we ensure there was an active admin monitoring the RfC (a proposal I think I'll make). In the example above, your comments were necessary to prevent a WP:V violation. If we're limiting user comments then an admin should step in when necessary.VR talk 13:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then there is also this approach (where an editor addressed the WP:V / WP:BLP violation while simultaneously submitting their !vote). So if an editor happens to catch a violation (before they've voted, or before an admin does), they could present it in the form of a !vote; which would limit bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that a restriction along the lines of "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)
 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not certain this is a good idea: I'm putting it out there to stimulate discussion. A consistent feature of this dispute is the unwillingness of uninvolved folks to get involved, particularly in RfCs. As the purpose of an RfC is to bring in uninvolved input, this tends to mean that every RfC because a rerun of the talk page discussion. If implemented, this proposal may reduce the massive and intimidating walls of text that appear whenever the protagonists here engage in a "discussion", and thereby, I hope, make it more likely for others to give their opinions. On the flip side, this may strengthen the tendency for any number of previously involved users to jump into an RfC with comments like "Support per User X", and thereby attempting to force through their preferred version. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point,, but I think we could wordsmith this so that admin comments are excluded. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that some variant of this approach is often a good idea, in order to prevent bludgeoning. Some RFCs are structured into two sections, a Survey and Threaded Discussion.  I would support the idea of confining back-and-forth discussion to its own section, and allowing administrators to collapse the back-and-forth it necessary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea. Multi-reply threads are sometimes, heck I'd say often, extremely helpful parts of complicated RfC discussions. Many times, two editors will drill down on an issue and it will illuminate the thinking of other editors who later read it. How often have you seen subsequent RFC !votes reference some part of an earlier discussion in the RfC? It's hard to differentiate between good discussion and unhelpful back-and-forth, but limiting everyone to one reply just stops discussion and that's a bit like avoiding car crashes by eliminating cars: effective but ultimately counterproductive. Bludgeoning is a problem that can only be addressed with the individual editors who bludgeon; there is no "one size fits all" solution. (The solution is to not be so lenient with bludgeoning editors.) Levivich 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

TBAN from RfCs
2) As a discretionary sanction, uninvolved administrators may restrict editors from participating in RfCs.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would agree uninvolved administrators already have this power under DS. However, knowing that Arbcom has your back if you utilize it can be important to seeing people willing to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.VR talk 17:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Another stab at the same problem, not necessarily intended to be in addition to the above. I don't even know if this needs to be codified; I think we already have the power to do this under DS. I see this as a potentially viable way of making RfCs workable again. Comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Too bespoke: any editor who cannot participate in RFCs should be topic banned because how can you help build the encyclopedia if you can't handle communicating with editors? I agree that some editors should be removed from RFCs but those editors should also be removed from editing the related articles... in other words, a tban. Levivich 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus required implementation review
1) Consensus required restriction can be reported at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for review by the arbitrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The idea of implementing CRP restriction was suggested by El_C here, where I complained about the edit wares by others. Although it was a great development, the restriction was violated multiple times (including here and here, both by the User:Idealigic). Just look how my CRP violation report was turned into a real mess and consequently Vanamonde refused to "spend precious free time dealing with this mess". Since this restriction is very helpful to the stability of the page, users should consider that any violation of this restriction would be reviewed accurately at the AE enforcement. -- M h hossein   talk 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

-- M h hossein   talk 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. Someone needs to enforce CRP, and suggested going to WP:AE for disruption.VR talk 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

1RR restriction
2) Users should not make more than 1 revert in 24 hrs.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The possibility of this restriction was suggested here but was not applied. -- M h hossein   talk 15:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think edit-warring is an issue, especially given WP:CRP is in force.VR talk 16:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think 1RR is necessary, unless we reassure that CRP is being enforced accurately without self-made judgements.-- M h hossein   talk 04:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Users come and go, but dispute remains
Vanamonde made an astute observation that "the cast had shifted while the drama kept going", and provided evidence for many participants, including those who were no longer a party, but were a party at one point. From the Xtools page of top editors, we see even more top disputants, including (topic-)banned users like Icewhiz, ExpectantofLight, SalehHamadi, SharabSalam, LondonHall etc. They have long gone but the disputes remain. Vanamonde gave evidence on just how long-winded the cult dispute has been.

My point is that this evidence calls for arbitrators to up systems and tools that allow for more effective dispute management. Saying "lets block the bad guys and move on" is not a good strategy because:
 * 1. it takes long to accumulate evidences of sufficient disruption before a block is justified; this would be even longer in this case because, as El_C pointed out in their evidence, most of the disruption is Civil POV pushing and obvious disruptions are rare
 * 2. the MEK dispute is attracting fresh parties (I only showed up a year ago, Bahar and Ghazalach showed up after me)

WP:CRP is one such good tool, but I think there need to be more.VR talk 02:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

RfCs might be manipulated by numbers
All sides seem to have given evidence that RfC voting at Talk:MEK has been problematic:
 * I gave evidence on how RfCs supported by a majority of votes were found to violate policy (see Battleground RfCs)
 * Stefka's evidence says "on the next RFC, the aforementioned four accounts (with very few edits at the time of their votes) show up to vote in favor of Mhhossein and VR."
 * El_C's evidence said "the pro-MEK camp (led by SB) railroaded them with sheer numbers."
 * Ghazaalch's evidence says "[Pro-MEK camp's] last resort...is to start an RFC. And why not? They have enough People around them to vote. And that is why the RFCs are so frequent in this talk page."

If I'm misinterpreting someone's evidence, please correct me. If we can all agree to this, then we can find solutions to this problem and propose them above.VR talk 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * how are the RFCs you mention "Battleground RfCs"? The RfC where I allegedly "railroaded the opposing side" was taken to ANI. What policy did that RfC break? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They are "battleground RfCs" because some users may not be carefully reading them, but instead simply voting for their "side". In that RfC on cult you referenced (#4 in Battleground RfCs), you had proposed a WP:V violation (as determined by Vanamonde); before you corrected it, you had received three "Yes" votes supporting the proposal containing the misrepresentation (Adoring nanny, Idealigic, MAJavadi). Your previous RfC on cult (#1 in Battleground RfCs) had also proposed a WP:V violation, (as determined by ). A majority had supported that the proposal (containing the misrepresentation) too, including Adoring nanny, Idealigic, MAJavadi. Point is not trying to pick on anyone, but rather that RfC voting needs reform.VR talk 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of this section,, is that voting might be a problem at Talk:MEK RfCs. Don't you agree?VR talk 01:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment by others:
 * I follow the page Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I came to the RfCs from that page. My understanding is that's the purpose of the page. "Manipulated" seems like a curious description for this. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Botsum and similar participation definitely does not fall within the problematic patterns that we have observed in the talk page. Canvassing and sockpuppetry on MEK-realted RfCs have been a problem for years, as can be observed in the presented evidence related to sockpuppetry. I think manipulation is an apt adjective for what some accounts have tried in the past. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting sources at an article under DS ought to be grounds for a topic ban all by itself and a permanent ban from using any source not easily accessible online at any article. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Using state-linked sources
Stefka raised a good point about using 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. Yet 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. cited Iranian govt linked media to establish notability and admin closed the discussion as keep. Whether Ali Ahwazi is using the sources properly will require a closer look at all his diffs.

Stefka and I had debated on whether a Saudi govt linked newspaper was a reliable source on MEK. I hope Arbitrators can provide guidance on this.VR talk 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This recent RSN discussion about PressTV may provide some background about IRI propaganda outlets. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Foundation (Iran). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This one example where a scholarly source expectation can help. Levivich 12:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Failure of RfCs

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am continuing to read the evidence and it is clear that RfCs have been tried. A lot. So much so can't keep them all straight. Why haven't RfCs worked for this dispute? As I read the evidence I am starting to form my answer to this question but would be interested in hearing from others why this dispute resolution method, often effective in my experience, hasn't worked for this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I had seen that and the issues presented around "super trim" RfCs is something I've been thinking about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Below El_C pointed RfCs being "re-re-tried", Stefka asked for an example, here's one. Stefka tried to remove MEK's unpopularity from the lead rfc). Then Idealigic repeated that 3 months later (rfc), which Vanamonde shut down as "This RfC attemps to remove that content altogether, which will not fly".VR talk 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that RFC involved a whole different can of worms (one of which included a WP:V / WP:SYNTH violation left in the lede of the article). In any case, Barkeep has proposed a possible solution to this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Barkeep49, I don't know if you have noticed my "New restriction proposal"– also presented in the evidences phase. Moreover, I strongly believe some limited comments from admins could strongly keep the RFCs in track (this happened a couple of times). -- M h hossein   talk 13:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mhhossein's second comment. Sometimes two users are discussing something back and forth, not getting anywhere, and then an admin comes along and says "this is what policy says" and the micro-dispute is quickly resolved. This prevents both RfCs and discussion sections from being bludgeoned.VR talk 13:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A major problem is editors first agreeing to a compromise, but then going back on their word (when apparently this no longer suits their POV).


 * This used to happen with and  ; but since Saff V.’s block (and subsequent sockpuppet block), it started to happen with Mhhossein and . For example:


 * ° VR says "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."


 * ° Another editor then changes "Saddam" to "Iraq (per VR’s comment).


 * ° Mhhossein reverts, protesting that the editor “used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus."


 * ° VR replaces "Post Iran-Iraq war" with “Post-war Saddam era” as a section tittle (in a section that only mentions “Saddam” once).


 * A more recent example:


 * ° In an attempt to get a RFC overturned (in this topic), VR says "I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12]"


 * ° Then, when I propose using scholarly sources in place of press sources, VR takes the matter to RSN attempting to get support for using non-scholarly sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As Stefka's comment is unrelated to RfCs, I've responded below instead.VR talk 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Because same RfCs kept getting tried and re-tried and re-re-tried yet still until... profit? When I was an active admin on the page, I've shut down quite a few with the reasoning being: it's barely been a month or two since this was decided by a previous RfC. El_C 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First I’d like to say that I have the highest regard of El_C and all the efforts they’ve put on the MEK page. My recollection of events, though, is somewhat different (we were also constantly told to open RfCs -  - etc.)  could you please provide diffs to these shutdown "re-re-tried" RFCs so that we may evaluate them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stefka Bulgaria, the pool evidence phase is closed. Also, those diffs all seem to involve the time period in which Vanamonde93 was active on the page (in fact, I believe they're all comments by Vanamonde93 himself), which was after my time so I have little knowledge of what took place then, anyway, so as to challenge anyone's recollection. But sure, struck. And with that, I bid you all adieu. El_C 08:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My experience about why RFCs have been difficult there: 1) editors persistent bludgeoning 2) editors persistent protesting to closing admins after RFCs were closed 3) editors persistently trying to prevent RFCs from happening (even though that seemed to be our last alternative for reaching consensus in those unending discussions). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Barkeep49, I believe the failure of RfCs here is a symptom, not the disease. Were I to be told of this dispute while unaware of the talk page history, I would in fact recommend RfCs, because they are supposed to be the cure for our perennial problem here; editors unable to examine content questions dispassionately. I think the answer to your question is the same as the reason why there's only two admins who have worked here regularly; and why threads on the admin noticeboards get no attention. Participants tend to drown any discussion in repetitive walls of text. I have an idea about this, which I'll propose shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, failed RFCs are a symptom of bludgeoning editors. There aren't that many bludgeoning editors, and the cure is to just remove them from the topic area. I'm not surprised that the editors have changed but the problems stay the same (discussed above), it seems unremarkable to me that we might need to remove problematic editors across several "generations" editors. These bunches are always spoiled by a few bad apples. Even if the individual bunches and bad apples change, it's always a few bad apples spoiling bunches and the solution is to remove the bad apples rather than trying to find a non-apple-focused solution like using a different basket or spraying a pesticide or something. Levivich 12:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Barca has repeated issues with using sources properly
In August 2020 TBANned  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.

Yet even after that TBAN Barca continued to misuse sources during discussions in 2021: I have only expanded on evidence presented already in either Vanamonde's section or mine.
 * Barca tries to rebut scholarly sources with poor sources (e.g personal opinion of Rudy Guiliani and "an active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf")
 * I pointed out to Barca that Vanamonde had determined these sources to not be as reliable as the one he wants to rebut.
 * Barca continues to post either poor or irrelevant sources (as WP:WALLSOFTEXT)
 * Vanamonde reiterates his point about weighty sources can't be rebutted with un-weighty ones, and adds "I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism."

To me this appears to be a long-term behavioral issue.VR talk 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * An editor who misrepresents sources at an article under DS isn't an editor who should be editing at that article, period. I'm willing to assume good faith that an editor with only 1200 edits may simply not yet understand how to use sources, and may be able to grow into a good editor, but no one at a DS article should have to deal with that disruptiveness on top of everything else. If you don't understand sourcing, you shouldn't be editing anywhere near any DS topic. —valereee (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Challenging RfC closures
Those challenging RfC closures have been criticized. But I think these challenges have raised legitimate concerns (as evidences by some closures being redone).


 * Mhossein discussed with L235 their closure. In the process of this discussion L235 realized a different issue and changed their closure.
 * I challenged this closure (Vanamonde pointed this out in his evidence). That closure was challenged by two different admins, one of whom reclosed the RfC with a different outcome.
 * I raised concerns with Chetsford about their closure. While they disagreed, they felt my concerns had merit and repeatedly encouraged me to take the closure to WP:AN. In the AN discussion, one admin (El_C) supported re-close, while another (S Marshall) didn't and the RfC was not re-closed.

VR talk 23:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * @VR: You keep quoting that first RFC (that was overturned by L235) and yes, I did screw up citing the wrong book there. Other than that, none of those RFCs were "Battleground" - as I've explained. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See also this evidence by Idealigic: the complaints against RFC closers (and attempts to prevent RFCs altogether) were numerous. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Battleground RfCs
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)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Vice regent continues to misrepresent sources
Despite all that's been said in this case about the importance of sourcing (and past track record), 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."). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Stefka's evidence is misleading:
 * For example, bullet 5 of Stefka's evidence against me shows me removing some content on 17:44, February 23, 2021. But this was a simple accident that I literally reverted 5 minutes later, when I restored the content on 17:49, February 23, 2021, without anyone needing to tell me so. I told Stefka about the misleading nature of his evidence twice before the deadline, yet he didn't correct it.
 * Stefka is absolutely right that I removed from the lead "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)
 * I have crossed out that point (bullet 5) based on your feedback here. You still have not explained why you wikivoiced that Massoud Rajavi was no longer the MEK leader. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources provided (scholarly or otherwise) say that Massoud Rajavi ceased being considered the MEK's leader (or co-leader), which is what Vice regent wikivoiced in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When someone is believed to be dead it is WP:COMMONSENSE to change "is" to "was". You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but here ya go: France24 says "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)
 * The scholarly consensus is that Rajavi has been missing since 2003 and it is unknown whether he is alive or dead. VR removed a scholarly source that supported this, then cherry-picked sources to say that “Rajavi is widely presumed to be dead” (while there are other recent sources that simply say Rajavi's has not been heard of since their disappearance: ), and then WP:ORed their own conclusion that Rajavi is no longer considered to be the MEK leader. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of misrepresenting sources, Stefka added this quote, but L235 later found it to be:
 * And this is just one example of Stefka misrepresenting sources.VR talk 22:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @VR: That mistake I made was back in 2019; yours happened now as we're closing the workshop phase here (which could could be argued constitutes an example of current disruption). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * VR just offered a reasonable explanation grounded in recent reliable sources. Won't you even acknowledge that? It doesn't seem that VR misrepresented any source, but used more recent sources instead. MarioGom (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * VR just offered a reasonable explanation grounded in recent reliable sources. Won't you even acknowledge that? It doesn't seem that VR misrepresented any source, but used more recent sources instead. MarioGom (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Getting outside comment from outside pages
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, WP:NPOVN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Is_this_source_ok_to_support_a_major_claim_in_the_lead_of_an_article? 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 and others for their thoughts.VR talk 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I was thinking about something like this too. Regardless of remedies, I was planning to post neutral notices of future RfCs to relevant WikiProjects, which would generally be Iran, and also depending on the topic of the RfC, Politics, Socialism, Islam, Terrorism, and Military history. MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Socking has been an issue here
The records of the page shows that socking has been an issue with this page (e.g. 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. -- M h hossein   talk 04:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Puppetry + RfCs being closed based on votes = dangerous combination. Puppetry can take the form of not just socking, but also meatpuppetry and offline canvassing. There are indications that all three have been happening but are difficult to conclusively prove.VR talk 03:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Response to Stefka's comment
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)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have no problem moving the concerns/evidence to whatever section VR (or anyone else) thinks fits better. Other than that, I stand by the points I made. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Two points regarding talkpage discussions
I have two things in my mind which should be considered for the talk page discussions in general:
 * 1) The talk page discussions would better be closed by an admin. I am suggesting this since, on some occasions, some of our past discussions on the talk page were to be GAMEd (like here). There are alot  of topics being discussed over and over.
 * 2) Users should ping the admins only when they think some sort of consensus should be assessed. Users should avoid frequently pinging admins for every single issue they are faced with. --  M h hossein   talk 04:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I definitely agree with an admin monitoring the talk page, closing discussions, advising on policy interpretations, and applying sanctions as necessary.VR talk 18:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: