Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Evidence

Request for word limit extension
CaptainEEK asked me on my talk page to elaborate on which editors besides the named parties have been involved in this dispute, and who therefore may need to have their behavior examined. I am compiling this list, but it is necessarily a little wordy; I ask that this particular list and associated evidence not be counted toward my word or diff limit. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Vanamonde93 I have a lot of time for a request like this but because this is the first of what could be several extension requests can you ballpark how much of an relaxing you'll need? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of documenting other involved parties, I'd say 50 words and 3 diffs per editor (which strikes me as quite reasonable), and I expect to list between 6 and 8 other editors. So perhaps I can make do with 400 words and 20 diffs; I can promise this extra evidence will be straightforward, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93 great. Let's bump you to 1k total words and 100 diffs (as if you were a party) at the moment and see where that gets you. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El C's evidence
in your evidence you write about the difficulties in organizing evidence. That alone is of some value but, and I am speaking only for myself here,I am always interested in evidence by uninvolved editors who have attempted to mediate a solution introduce evidence along the lines of "Here's a thing going on. Proving it all is hard but here's a diff or two of what I'm talking about." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, this was years ago, so it's hard for me to remember and I just don't know if I'll be able to spare hours and hours toward this, sorry. El_C 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , asked do impressions from my mind count?. I would humbly opine that letting uninvolved editors, who have spent a lot of time in this area, give their impressions (even without diffs or other evidence) could be valuable. (Parties such as myself would still need to dig up diffs and give context). I would assume that it would be less time onerous for one to simply write about their impressions. I don't mean to be presumptuous or pressuring (apologies if I am).VR talk 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Impressions of uninvolved editors can be of some value. Because impressions are harder for a party to give counter-evidence to or to contextualize in a different way diffs remain at the center of what ArbCom does. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello I believe that you are very a experienced admin with regards to the page. You certainly did a great deal to resolve the disputes. That is why I believe your comments are really missing here. May I kindly ask you let us know your valuable thoughts? I know that seems to be time-consuming, but there are evidences and diffs provided by users now. Those diffs and comments may alleviate your work. Thanks. --  M h hossein   talk 04:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for pinging you again. In light of your comment, can I have your kind attention towards the following portion of my comment selected from the statement phase:
 * –"...Another issue by them was "filibustering". In response to my query on Stefka Bulgaria's gaming, El_C said that "Consensus here will not be arrived at by filibuster." Moreover, he warned Stefka Bulgaria against tendentious editing. This issue in Stefka Bulgaria's editing pattern was observed by an uninvolved admin who warned against "filibustering". The next issue was Stefka Bulgaria's "overzealous trimming" and "railroading" the opposing side by opening super-trim RFCs. El_C concemned this here and here (there are some more info here where I proposed limiting the RFCs). El_C said it was mostly Stefka Bulgaria who had to be "respectful by not coming across as trying to railroad the opposing side" and proposed controlling Stefka Bulgaria's approach via WP:GS/IRANPOL."
 * Also, you suggested the idea of having an "outright requirement" for Stefka Bulgaria to avoid super-trim RFCs (he was "instructed" to avoid it). Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 05:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though had suggested that there was no policy against opening RFCs with a wide scope, I have not opened another RFC after 's feedback, so I question Mhhossein's intent here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, y'all? Feuding here, too? Drop it, for goodness sake. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @El C what is a super-trim RfC? From context I'm guessing I know but don't want to presume I'm correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * uh, an RfC that trims super'ly...? Tautology not meant as a slight (much), I'm just unsure what exactly you're asking for me to clarify here. El_C 16:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I was confused because the rfc you linked appears like it was only asking to remove a sentence and so wasn't sure how that became a super-trim RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. One sec, let me check. I was writing a bit under the gun yesterday. El_C 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, you're right, that was the wrong RfC. I think this was the one I was thinking of. Will you authorize me to amend (with strikethrough)? Sorry, I'm still unable to tell if this was the RfC that was set to trim to 1/20th, or the one that was set to trim to 1/10th of the original text. Again, I apologize for my imprecision. It's just really hard to remember. El_C 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @El C I have used my arb discretion to make the change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, thanks. El_C 15:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

List of involved parties
Apologies if I have misled by my absence; I had not completed the list of parties I consider involved before RL called me away. I will complete it as soon as I am able, hopefully in the next 36 hours. I generally take no issue with the inclusions other users have suggested. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Vanamonde93 I expect we'll add at least some of the parties suggested. However, out of procedural fairness it will mean we extend the timetable. As such finishing in the next 36 hours is somewhat important. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. I will do my best. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am finished with adding to this list. There have been other participants; I don't think I had appreciated until today the extent to which the cast had shifted while the drama kept going; but I think we've got all those who have kept it going. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just publicly acknowledging that this had been seen and is being discussed - it's taken us a little longer than I hoped which is why I hadn't already left an acknowledgement. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the two parties you just added to the case are the only ones ARBCOM is planning on adding, or if further additions are being discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are the only two we plan to add. Our feeling is that in a dispute such as this it will be expected that further work will happen after the case through GS/DS if there are others who are being disruptive. If one of the people suggested wished to be a party we would consider them in that case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am a little surprised by a couple of non-inclusions, but I understand the need to keep the case manageable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, should users like user:Bahar1397 receive a note on their talk pages? -- M h hossein   talk 05:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Some posts are out of place
Two posts in this section shouldn't be there, but should be in the users' own section. Polite pings to the two recently active clerks and .VR talk 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved them to here for now, since they where just objecting to what was posted instead of making a rebuttal. CodeLyoko  talk  22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Shiasun

 * I am an active user of fawiki. therefore, it is not surprising that i am edited articles related to iran.
 * By the way, all the things i said in that RFC were with reason and source, and I did not say anything unreasonable so that you would say that I have created a problem on that page.
 * I always watch those pages and when i can help wiki by commenting, i do not hesitate to.
 * I also suggest you read this. Shiasun (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This was moved from the evidence page as a reply to evidence posted by  CodeLyoko  talk  22:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Maqdisi117

 * I'm getting rather tired of these baseless accusations when I have no connections with any of the above listed individuals. If this behavior continues, I will most likely be forced to seek help from one of the administrators on this page.Maqdisi117 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This was moved from the evidence page as a reply to evidence posted by  CodeLyoko  talk  22:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Alex-h
Last time I edited the MEK article was in July 2019. I have made some contributions to the talk page (particularly RFCs) because I thought it could do with input, but that's mainly it. Alex-h (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Timetable extension?
You mentioned a possible timetable extension above; any word on what this will look like? I'd rather not engage in a mad scramble to add evidence over the next three days, if we're going to get much more time after that. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The case clerks should respond to you shortly. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93 the clerks have gotten the information and so that will hopefully go up soon. But since you asked, we will be extending the Evidence phase by 2 weeks to give the new parties we're adding a full time period to participate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * will this extension be given to the "old" parties (e.g me) too? Or is our deadline still Aug 6?VR talk 21:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vice regent the extension will be for everyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * and is the deadline end of the day (UTC) August 17 (as opposed to beginning of day)?VR talk 17:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , At the end of the day. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks .  it seems you're under the impression that the deadline is tonight, but its tomorrow night (i.e. its more than 24 hours from now).VR talk 17:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, thanks for picking up on that VR and for clarifying . Still, even with that increased time, it's a bit of a tight deadline, so targeted requests (as opposed to a review of one's entire evidence section) to me would be best, at least if my if imy response is to happen on the evidence page proper, as opposed to a talk page, where I suppose I could confirm/reaffirm, etc. just the same, so long as the arbs see it, at least. Unless that's in bad form...? I honestly don't know. I'm not really too experienced with the procedures of a full arbitration case to have a good grasp of its rules or even just etiquette. El_C 17:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
I have spent several hours today trying to sift useful evidence from the morass that is Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. I recognize that it would be useful to have the clearest evidence of misconduct summarized, so I will continue to do so. I would, however, urge those of you who have the time to read clear through the archives of that talk page for the last couple of years. I think nothing else can give quite the same understanding of the dispute and the behavior of all the participants. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Red Phoenix's evidence review
Struck per Barkeep's note - will re-add at workshop stage Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Nosebagbear I have been delayed in the thorough reading of the evidence so I will admit I have not done more than a simple read of Red's evidence yet but I would suggest that this might better belong as Analysis of Evidence over in the workshop than as a talk page comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read your talk page post because I was pinged to it, and I'm happy to help clarify. Having never participated in an Arbcom case before, when I wrote up my evidence, I took a strict approach to the 500 word limit and used a word counter.  I'm more than glad to provide a deeper dive if you would like; my goal in providing evidence was to show what I observed in giving my recommendation that the committee take the case.  Based on Barkeep49's post above, it seems this might be best done during Analysis of Evidence, and I'll be more than willing to help out in providing context and defending my viewpoint on the evidence.   Red Phoenix  talk  01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am drafting a clarification to provide context. It will take quite a few more words (as it, admittedly, should have done when I first wrote it up).  As such, I may ask for a higher word limit and just handle this now, but I'm not done drafting yet due to available time.  I only want for my observations to be clear, and having read Nosebagbear's post and then rereading my evidence, I definitely do see that what I didn't cut out and posted was a bit too scant in context to illustrate what I saw.   Red Phoenix  talk  03:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - that sounds positive, and generally the arbs seem pretty willing to provide additional words to clarify points where it's going to be useful. Think the best thing is for me to wait for the expansion - if that clarifies then problem solved, if not then I can ask some questions about it in the workshop phase Nosebagbear (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Per this discussion, may I have an additional 500 words to provide context and clarify? Even as I reread my own evidence now with fresh eyes, I see that my attempt to keep my evidence within 500 words resulted in a significant loss of context. If after that point Nosebagbear or any other editors have questions or concerns, I'll be glad to discuss it at Analysis of Evidence during the Workshop phase, but I think I should be clearer before we get there. Red Phoenix talk  01:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Red Phoenix you're good with 500 more words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A question with subsection titles
The evidences provided here contain too long subsection titles which I think is misrepresenting me. Should the titles change? -- M h hossein   talk 04:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Pinging Barkeep49 for their kind attention. -- M h hossein   talk 04:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mhhossein the titles do make strong claims so I understand why you disagree. The claims are backed by evidence and the arbitrators will look at that evidence and use our judgement to decide if the claims are justified or not. You are also able to provide your own evidence or explanation. As for their length, I'm going to discuss it with others. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. I am waiting for the result of your discussion. On my part, I tried to have neutral titles. -- M h hossein   talk 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for extension
As a party to this case, I have tried to provide my evidences but am concerned with the length restrictions. Could I kindly ask for an additional 500 words for a better portrayal of the diffs and evidences? Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I am also a bit concerned about length restrictions. Could I also please have a 500-word extension? (I'll do my best not to use it, but would be good to know is there just in case). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I definitely also need a 500 word extension, would you be kind enough to grant it? Thanks.VR talk 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Stefka Bulgaria and @Vice regent if you need it, you can also have 500 words more (1500 total). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!VR talk 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Note to Stefka Bulgaria
When I posted my evidence, I said "if you see any mistakes or misrepresentations leave a message on User talk:Vice regent. I'm very amenable to feedback." So I wish to politely extend this same courtesy to. Arbs please let me know if I'm out of line here and I'll strike this section. Stefka I feel you may have missed some things when you compiled your evidence regarding me.
 * You correctly pointed out that I removed “shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution”. But this was accidental and I restored that back only 5 minutes later. Did you miss my self-revert?
 * You correctly pointed out that I proposed the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule, which was not in any sources. But I fixed my mistake as soon as Alex-h pointed it out, in case you missed this.
 * You wrote "Here I respond to VR [about SYNTH concerns]...Then VR argues that 'many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented'..." But if you look at the timestamps of your diffs, it is the other way around. First I presented "many, many sources" and then you told me about your SYNTH concerns. And as soon as you raised the concern, I agreed with you and tried to address it.

I know that I would appreciate it if people reviewed my evidence for mistakes and gave me an opportunity to correct them. Again I apologize in advance if this is not the right place for this.VR talk 18:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment by HistoryofIran
Pretty such I have given a sufficient explanation everytime per the rules. And regarding your accusation that I did not read the RFC, you were already told that it was not on purpose, and told to refrain from making such accusations towards me, yet you've done it here again? I'm not sure what your obsession with me is; I haven't sat foot in these MEK related articles in ages (and dont want to either) and yet you've mentioned (smeared) me like twice this month. Leave me alone or I will report you for harassment. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was written in Vice regent's #BATTLEGROUND RfCs section. Since HistoryofIran had not added their own section and the top of this evidence page notes "The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page", I have moved it to this talk page as a clerk action. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The time span should be wide enough
In light of 's "Evidence difficult to curate" I would recommend considering even older archives, to gain better vision over what is going on. Adding to what I said here, there are some important things being of the most disputed topics. One of them, as Vanamonde said, is labels for the MEK. The other one is MEK's ideology – looking at the comments, you can see discussion over ideology date back to "2005" (here) and had been of interest to the pro-MEK socks. On the other hand, since these first archives are not as large as the recent ones, it is not difficult to address them. -- M h hossein   talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC) ( transferred here by me, from the evidence page, due to the word limits).--  M h hossein   talk 07:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, I prefer not to be pinged unless being asked something specific. I'm also less inclined to respond to disputants trying to use me to gain an edge in this perennial dispute, as I am very much done with that. So, in that sense, queries from uninvolved editors are preferred and will be prioritized. El_C 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then sorry for the ping. This comment was made 24 days ago and was originally on the evidence page, so it was just meant to suggest more topics for discussion. Sorry for the interruption. -- M h hossein   talk 13:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'll clarify that this was also partly in response to your two other pings today at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence, not just what you've written in this section here. El_C 16:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there you said "If anyone wishes for me to review ...". Had I realized I was excluded from that anyone, I would not certainly make the ping. Cheers, -- M h hossein   talk 05:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that the first ping was before your comment and sorry for that. -- M h hossein   talk 05:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence phase closed! El_C 16:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How are words counted?
How are words counted? I determined my word count by copying and pasting visual text (not source text) into https://wordcounter.net/ where it shows my evidence as exactly 1,495 words. I wonder if there's an official word counter. I didn't try to count my diffs, can you do that automatically somehow?VR talk 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Source text is not used. You can manually count your diffs by just subtracting your highest diff number in the section from the previous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But many of my diffs are inline linked and inline diffs don't show a number. I also used a lot of internal and piped links.VR talk 21:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you could alternatively count how many single and double open square brackets in the wikitext to determine the number of diffs you have used. A quick regex pattern that could be used is  (to count open single square brackets) and   (to count closed double square brackets). In regards to word counting, User:L235/wordcount.js provides a section-by-section word count which I use to determine word counts without having to use an external tool. There isn't an official word counter, but any word counter that provides an accurate enough count should be fine. Generally a statement over it's word limit by a few words is not a problem as the word limits are there to encourage concise evidence submissions, but ideally all submissions should remain under the limit. As such small discrepancies between the counts by different tools shouldn't be an issue if you are close to or under the limit. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just written User:L235/wordAndLinkCounter.js, which also reports the number of links in each section. This will be an overcount, because all links (such as links in a signature) are counted, but it should provide an upper bound and a rough approximation of diffs. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, we usually try not to worry about it to the degree that a slight overage from diffs, or signatures will cause problems. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  22:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I just tried both methods. My words are under the limit but my diffs are not. Kevin's method yielded 209 links for my section. A quick peek showed several others users' evidences above 100 links, but none as high as mine. So I tried the regexp method instead by using the matcher at regex101.com/: 125 matches to single square bracket links (all diffs); 58 matches to double square bracket links (combination of links to discussion sections or links to policies). That's 183 links in total. I have 21 Template:User links (including Template:Ping and Template:No ping) so that partially explains the 183 vs 209 discrepancy. Of the 58 double square bracket links about 18 are to article talk space, so I could reasonably estimate 125 + 18 = 143 links to discussions and edits, which is still over the 100 diff limit. I realize the evidence phase is closed, is there anything I can do now? I apologize to all arbitrators for being above the diff limit, its not something I realized until now.VR talk 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In hindsight when I asked for a 50% word limit extension (1000 to 1500) I should have requested a 50% diff limit extension too. Can I request that now somehow? Apologies once again.VR talk 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I count about 130 diffs as some of the other stuff is merely links to policies, guidelines, or essays. Selfishly I would really like the diffs to be cut down - I'm several hours in to reading the evidence and feel like I have barely made a dent - but I don't know that you're at a point where it needs to be cut down. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not selfish at all, someone joked last month "i tried looking at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and i have never closed a tab so quickly." Re-reading my section, I've immediately spotted about 15 diffs that are somewhat redundant/unnecessary. If you give me permission I can remove those myself, or I can work with an arb or clerk and tell them which ones these are.VR talk 15:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)