Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Proposed decision

Update on PD
The proposed decision should be up later today or tomorrow. There's a bit of wordsmithing left to do before it's posted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

1.6 nitpicking
It strikes me as a bit odd to include encouragement as a remedy re Administrators who have enforced the Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. I would have expected an FOF if it was necessary to say "you guys dun good, do more". (I make no comment on whether it is indeed necessary to say such a thing.) (There is also some irony in sentencing admins to continue working in a dispute area and calling it a remedy. ;) Izno (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Izno great comment and you're right that it is a bit of an odd fit. The wording on this was designed to mimic our recent motion turning the COVID community GS into DS and that wording in a motion is obviously more of a fit than it is as a remedy to a larger case. In general, I am in favor of ArbCom having somewhat standard wording for stuff so we don't need to do Talmudic interpretations of what was meant with different wordings when in reality the intent was the same. Perhaps we (or I as one of the drafters) went too far here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems agreeable. Izno (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ultimately the line between FoFs and remedies can be blurred with non-actionable/enforceable remedies. In this case, I would say that this encouragement portion of the remedy is akin to how warnings and admonishments are non-actionable but still considered remedies. (And, aren't FoFs against a user without corresponding remedies just implicit warnings?) In any event, this is a standard formulation that the committee uses when assuming community-authorized discretionary sanctions, so I think it's sticking. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * they can be, but equally they can be positive or neutral, or somewhat negative statements that are necessary as background but where remedies are not required. Examples include a user doing something bad but then making amends for it (e.g. self-reverting) or where an editor tried a solution that might have worked but for whatever reason didn't - especially if it's something that seems obvious it's worth documenting why the Committee aren't doing it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C
Yeah, it's funny (thanks, now go man the stations!), but I'm actually positively impressed with what I'm seeing. I'd even go so far as saying: expectations exceeded. You dun good Arbs, now go on and arbitrate the land! El_C 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sectioned. Now I'm sad. El_C 02:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf's Comments

 * Principle 8 (General Sanctions): pedantically, the community imposes all "General sanctions", those imposed by ArbCom are "Discretionary Sanctions". In practice there is very little difference between them other than the venue at which they are enforced. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, apologies for being 10x more pedantic, but my understanding is that "general sanctions" encompasses all restrictions that apply to topics/pages (instead of editors); that's why they're general. So when ArbCom puts a topic area under 1RR, or authorizes DS, that's a general sanction and it's listed at WP:GS. The community also imposes general sanctions, and one of those options is "community-authorized discretionary sanctions" (see the "type" column of General sanctions). But yes, it's all very pedantic and we would probably do well to toss it all in the sea and start over. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic's comments
I don't understand this point: "Idealigic has reverted good faith non-substantive edits without adequate explanation."

I think that edit was about Mhhossein reverting me without adequate explanation. Can somebody please explain this? Idealigic (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's great that the arbs found it evident that Vice regent falsely accused me of CRP violation while it was VR who made the violation. VR has also put content in articles that were not in the sources. Yet VR's civil battleground merits only a warning, but I'm being considered for a topic ban? Can somebody also please explain this? Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent's comments
Thanks everyone (arbs, clerks, admins, parties, non-parties) for spending time on this case. A few initial comments:
 * Strongly agree with remedy 1(vi). Big thanks to Vanamonde and El_C. Any other admin reading this, please help monitor Talk:MEK. In the spirit of WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, please help resolve issues before they snowball.
 * I don't disagree some of Mhhossein's behavior has been problematic, but they have done amazing, non-contentious, content work (GA,DYKs) in this area that has been praised by admins . I would kindly request any remedy against him be tailored to allow such work to continue.
 * Since novel remedies might be confusing to even veteran wikipedians, where can we seek clarifications later on? VR talk 08:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The aim is to prevent disruption and allow more collegiate editing in the space to continue; if Mhhossein's content work is great in some respects, I expect we can see that in other, less-contentious areas, and the scope of the topic ban can always be reduced in the future with a request (which will factor in whether work in other areas has been less problematic.) The same can be said for any of the other parties that currently have a remedy attached. Such restrictions are not made indefinite to keep people away from an area forever, but to try and redirect energies towards more productive ends.
 * As to remedies, clarifications on old cases can be sought at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but if there's something obvious in the PD you think needs addressing it's best to raise it here and get arb eyeballs on it now, rather than waiting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and noted. Where can I seek clarifications regarding WP:ACDS imposed by admins? For example, in light of FoF #7, I have questions regarding WP:CRP.VR talk 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You could ask the admin who imposed the restriction. Alternatively if there is an admin helping things along, as El C and Vanamonde have, asking them is also appropriate (and something many have done judging by the evidence of this case). Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barkeep. What if they're unable to respond? In the case of CRP, both admins were asked and it was posted at WP:AN too. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want guidance in what to do in such situations.VR talk 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then use caution? I know it's not the most satisfying answer but it's what I have to offer. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * a question about this, suppose someone jumps the gun and starts an unsectioned RfC. How would other parties go about finding an admin to do what you suggested (eg "closing the RfC down temporarily to fix it"). Post at WP:AN or WP:AE? VR talk 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that passes (and right now I suspect it won't) you could go to AE to ask for enforcement because it is a remedy in an arbitration case. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.VR talk 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like some clarification on FoF #7. I can see that diff #1 shows me commenting on the contributor, not content, and diff #3 relates to WP:CRP, and I apologize for both. But what is wrong with diff #2? My intent is not to challenge the overall FoF (or warning) but to avoid repeating my mistakes. Any further details for "Vice regent warned" remedy would also be appreciated. I'm keen to improve as an editor. Thanks! VR talk 15:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * voted twice at "Vice regent warned".VR talk 15:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein's comment
Thanks everyone for your time. I know this is not a 'who did what' step and I have already acknowledged that I have had wrongdoings. I know it's a bog request, but I hope I would be given another chance to edit this area where I can work on my weak/power points. I would like to kindly ask you positively consider my previous edits in this area. For instance, I could not make this and this a GA without collaborating with others (same thing goes for the other Iranian politics related contents I contributed to during the past 7.5 years). Best, -- M h hossein   talk 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides, I have done dozens of DYKs in this area, including but not limited to this, this and this. -- M h hossein   talk 13:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for considering my request and sorry for the belated comment (due to RL commitments). I do understand the arbs are thinking over making the best decision. Regardless of the outcome, the final decision is certainly respected and I would be bound to it. However, I also do understand if am given another chance for editing the page and the topic area, I am in fact having a heavy responsibility. Then I must do my best to take care of the arbs' trust – which I would interpret as the society's trust. Why not having the chance of working towards making the page a GA as opposed to be banned from it? I think I am able to carry this burden and prove that I have taken the necessary lessons from this case. I'd like to express my apology for the disruptions and know that patience is an important factor I have to work on. Best -- M h hossein   talk 20:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria's plead
I love Wikipedia, and I’ve dedicated a lot of my time to the IRANPOL topic (which is clouded by long-term POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources).

Though I have made mistakes along the way, I have also removed a lot of vandalism and problematic edits. The problematic edits in this topic are often disguised as accurate representations of reliable sources, which is why they often go unnoticed (see this or this recent talk page discussion, for example).

If the community decides to allow VR to continue editing in this topic area, then I would kindly ask to also be allowed to edit in this topic area. Few editors have taken the time to inspect sources in these disputes as much as I have, and without this, such problematic edits could easily go unnoticed (like, for example, the MEK leader no longer being the group's leader).

I would willingly abide by whatever norms the community may want to impose on me; I just want the opportunity to prevent distorted representation of sources in an encyclopedia I care much about. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

National and Territorial Disputes
This principle is a very good idea, and may be useful to include if any of the existing territorial disputes have to be reopened to modify the sanctions or impose new sanctions.

I have been saying, for a long time, that there are too many areas that are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds. Modern Iran is another of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz's section
For members of the Committee concerned with the link to WP:WINNING in Principle #7, perhaps WP:UNANIMOUS may be more appropriate. That seems to cover what's being said. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Perfect, that's what I would be looking for. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93's section
First off, a big thank you to all the arbs for working through this: I think the committee has done a great job here. Though it saddens me somewhat, I think the sanctions on individual editors are necessary. They may not believe it, but I do have considerable respect for the content work of several of the parties here. I think they could make very useful contributions, but would benefit considerably from taking some time away from this topic, which is clearly quite an emotive one.

I have a couple of quibbles with two of the principles. First: The NPOV principle is crucial, obviously, and necessary. I'm curious as to why the more detailed wording used at, for instance, the German war effort case was not used here. Specifically, the fact that NPOV is about points of view in reliable sources, rather than views among editors or the general population, isn't made explicit here (though of course WP:DUE does say that, assuming it's linked appropriately).

Second: I greatly appreciate the national and territorial disputes principle; even if it is implied by WP:NPOV, this is very much worth spelling out. To me, the crucial point is that editors need to be able to separate their own POV from what reliable sources say; and this might be worth calling out specifically, in addition to mentioning the general need for policy compliance. I say this because far too much of the argumentation in this dispute (and elsewhere) has been based on what editors believe they know to be true, without regard for the source material. , I suspect you drafted that; thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 06:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Why this version of NPOV and not GWE? At lease from my perspective, I didn't see evidence that suggested the need for the extra wording of GWE. Plus, importantly, GWE doesn't specifically call out misuses of opinion pieces which is something I observed when looking through the evidence here. As for incorporating the RS piece into the national dispute principle, I think the principles need to be read as a set and so that idea is specifically mentioned in principle 3, which for me is important enough to be its own piece rather than part of an already fairly substantial principle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * About national disputes, fair enough. About NPOV, though: WP:DUE says: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (Emphasis mine). Using unreliable sources to challenge higher quality sources has been a recurring problem here, and so I continue to feel the brevity in the principle here can be easily misinterpreted. At the very very least I would ask you to link WP:DUE where it is referred to. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I hadn't read remedy 6.1 when I commented before. I think another warning here would be a serious mistake. Mhhossein (and many others, of course) has been warned about his conduct many, many times. I gave Mhhossein (and others) a specific warning about battleground behavior, in this topic, as the result of a community discussion, in January 2019. The warnings aren't working. Some distance from the topic is needed; and I note that Mhhossein has certainly been the worst offender with respect to personalizing discussions. Lest anyone think I have a particular dislike of him: I'm only saying this because the other proposed TBANs appear to be non-controversial at this point (and that's a good thing). Vanamonde (Talk) 06:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Eostrix: RfC rules
The various rules proposed on RFCs (1, 2, and 3) are on the one hand complex, and on the other hand prone to editors jumping the gun, perhaps unaware, and starting an RfC that does not meet the rules. They are also an overkill for some potential RFC questions. I have a simpler suggestion: mandate that for the topic area RfCs may only be started by an uninvolved admin after advertising the prospective RfC at WP:AN (or some other board relevant to admins, maybe AE or ANI). The univolved admin may then set ground rules for the specific RfC in question (perhaps the decision could list possible remedies for moderation). Some cases, for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini&oldid=1031672725#Which_photo_do_you_think_is_the_best? selecting the best photo] may be simple enough for a simple vote without any moderation other than a go ahead. Other cases, involving RfC questions prone to vote stacking, sock puppetry, and tendentious arguments may require tailored solutions that are specific to the dispute.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * RfC remedy 1 (#2) is the only one that would be mandatory across the topic area. If it passed and someone started an RfC incorrectly it is designed so it could be fixed after the start of the RfC. That everyone thing in RfC remedy 2 (#3) could also happen after the start even if someone jumps the gun and starts an RfC too quickly. For RfC remedy 3 (#3a) There would even be the option of closing the RfC down temporarily to fix it, which would also be an option for the other two. I would strongly prefer to have all editors have RfCs be an option for them in the dispute resolution process and so could not support your concept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich's section
So if an admin, as a DS action, imposes a moratorium on an RFC (or imposes word limits or sectioning or something else), and editors disagree with that, where do they appeal? To AE? To ARCA? And what happens if two admins disagree about how an RFC is run? Who makes that call: Arbcom? That would mean Arbcom gets to decide, ultimately, if the community can or cannot hold an RFC? I don't think that flies, or if it did, I think that'd need a change to policy. I know that moratoriums have been done in the past, but I always thought those were either by an admin on their own authority (and thus appealable to the community... and pointedly, not a DS action), or else they were basically IAR invocations. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I find a bit shocking to suggest that Arbcom and its admin delegates would be able to tell the community when and how it can run an RFC. Levivich 15:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is possible that the rehashing of discussions can, itself, be disruptive. I see such evidence in this case. There are already several RfC moratoriums listed at WP:AELOG so this is not breaking new ground. I understand the idea you and Brad are concerned about that ArbCom has never actually endorsed it before but the fact that these moratoriums have not reached ArbCom is itself an indication of the community's acceptance of them when appropriate. Speaking personally I would prefer that a single admin not have this power but our DS process is not currently setup to allow any sort of consensus based decision making at AE (or elsewhere) and again I think there is ample evidence in offer at this case to suggest that RfCs themselves have been disruptive. Of course if an editor disagrees with a DS page restriction they may appeal it at AE and then up to ARCA. And the issue of two admin disagreeing with each other about DS, especially page level DS, is already something we experience so that too isn't breaking new ground. What is happening here is, in my view, precedented and appropriate to the facts offered in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you share some of the example of RFC moratoriums? Searching AELOG for "moratorium", I find two examples, both are RM moratoriums not RFCs (though that distinction probably does not matter), and both were put in by the same admin (that matters hugely to me, as it does not indicate widespread use/approval). What are the other examples? (It must be using a word other than "moratorium"?) I know I've seen moratoriums before, but I thought of those as either being by community consensus or "ordinary" admin discretion, but not as logged DS actions (the difference, which you know but for the sake of anyone else reading this who might not know, is about how such a moratorium can be undone or appealed). Aside from precedence, in the context of an Arb case about Iran, which is a narrow topic most editors are not paying attention to, if Arbcom says that across all DS, an individual admin can shut down an RFC and that can only be overturned at AE or ARCA, I think we're virtually guaranteed a headache-inducing thread at WT:ACN later in which someone uses the words "power grab". As currently drafted, I predict Remedy 3.0 (which is currently passing?) is going to come as a surprise to a significant portion of the community. At the very least, limit it to the scope of the case. Everyone who edits other DS areas who don't care about this DS area are going to want to know why they weren't notified of the discussion on this page right now, given that the proposed remedies extend to DS areas beyond the scope of the case and will affect their editing directly (no one who doesn't edit in the Iran topic area is going to expect this case to have a remedy that affects their editing directly). And if I'm right, the predictable backlash at WT:ACN is going to have a chilling effect on any admin actually implementing the remedy, which will be counterproductive, basically rendering the remedy useless. Maybe it should be "tested" in a smaller area (the Iran DS), or maybe some kind of community notification should be made to solicit more feedback on this. Or, if there is so much precedent for it that it really is nothing new, then perhaps that precedent should (or some examples) should be mentioned/linked in the remedy, so that readers reading the remedy understand this isn't new. Levivich 16:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Short on time so I haven't read this through all the way. In terms of stopping consensus processes I don't feel there's any difference between RM and RfC because contentious RM are just as much a content decision as an RfC. An example, however, of an RfC moritorium was the one that was on Stanley Kubrick. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I can see that a single admin having this power may seem excessive, admins already can and do impose a very wide variety of sanctions and restrictions in DS areas, unilaterally (that's the whole point, after all). Procedurally I believe these need to be appealed at AE or ARCA; but aside from editors appealing their own restrictions, these actions are challenged very infrequently. To me this suggests that the two-admins-disagree problem is very probably a trivial one. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)