Vice regent (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
=== Statement by Vice regent === |
=== Statement by Vice regent === |
||
Idealgic's statement that I am "{{tq|trying to fill the article with as much slanderous content as possible}}" is the core issue here. A group of users ({{u|Stefka Bulgaria}}, {{u|Alex-h}}, {{u|Ypatch}}, {{u|BarcrMac}}, {{u|MA Javadi}}, {{u|Idealigic}}, {{u|Nika2020}} etc) are trying to whitewash [[People's Mujahedin of Iran]] of anything they consider "slander". They see their campaign as [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] in favor of what they call the "democratic" opposition ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=992327549][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=994572377]). But what they consider "slander" is quite [[WP:V|verifiable]]: |
|||
*They said that the idea that MEK's alliance with Iraq had made it unpopular in Iran "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=985067928 doesn't make sense]" and tried to remove it ([[Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive 39#RfC about removing contentious content from the lede|this RfC]]), even though I provided [[Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39#Mek Unpopular|19 sources]]. They tried removing it again ([[Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_40#RFC_about_the_lead|this RfC]]) until Vanamonde93 closed the RfC commenting "{{tq|This RfC attempts to remove that content altogether, which will not fly}}." |
|||
*They say that allegations that MEK operates like a cult are disputed and come from Iran, yet I provided [[Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 42#Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult|15 scholarly sources]] that argue that MEK meets the definition of a cult. Despite this they amassed 10 votes in support (proposal "A" in this RfC) but Vanamonde [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=1019996025&oldid=1019964698 closed the RfC] as "consensus against proposal A" because "{{tq|sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor}}". |
|||
*They say that MEK didn't take part in the [[1991 Iraqi uprisings]] (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RFC:_Kurds_and_the_MEK_in_the_lead this RfC]), yet Mhhossein provided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=1022937051 12 sources] that say it did. |
|||
*Idealigic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=1027731232&oldid=1027647632 said] Iraq's participation in MEK's [[Iran-Iraq war]] operations was "disputed". Yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1028227125 I provided] 10 scholarly sources that say Iraq took part. One uninvolved user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1028482276 commented] that any denial of Iraqi involvement in the Iran-Iraq war operations "{{tq|strains credibility}}". |
|||
The above discussions and RfCs exhibit a pattern: |
|||
#One of them proposes [[Wikipedia:WHITEWASH|whitewashing]] MEK in a way that violates policy. |
|||
#Someone (usually me or Mhhossein) points out the policy violation. |
|||
#They stonewall the discussion ([[Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Stonewalling|example]]); derail it ([[Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_41#Unexplained_revert|here]] I wanted to correct a simple error yet the discussion was repeatedly derailed); counter with unreliable sources ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=1013091948], [[Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Source_analysis|this analysis]]); or just ignore. |
|||
#Votes come pouring in to support #1 like you wouldn't believe. Some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=991934973 admit] they don't read the RfC before voting. |
|||
#An admin is forced to intervene: mostly Vanamonde, (but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_34#Removal admin TonyBallioni has intervened too]). |
|||
#After #5 the group sometimes adheres to policy, but other times repeats this cycle [[WP:CPP|gradually exhausting others]] |
|||
I've noticed similar behavior by this group elsewhere, eg Stefka repeatedly argued [[Nonie Darwish]] was a reliable source on Islam ([[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source?|here]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_325#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source_on_Islam?|here]], Rondolinda also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1000323686 jumped in]) causing a previously uninvolved user Hemiauchenia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1000315768 to say] that Stefka was "a tenacious anti-islam POV-pusher". |
|||
Regarding my supposed CRP violation: the sequence of edits were complicated, so I sought clarification [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Consensus_required#Does_restoration_of_meaning,_without_restoring_the_exact_wording,_count_as_a_%22revert%22? here]; I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1031170808 offered to apologize] if I did violate it. |
|||
Agree that arbitration is needed.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 05:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Stefka Bulgaria === |
=== Statement by Stefka Bulgaria === |
||
===Statement by Ymblanter=== |
===Statement by Ymblanter=== |
Revision as of 05:16, 16 July 2021
Requests for arbitration
Modern Iranian politics
Initiated by Idealigic (talk) at 09:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Idealigic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- diff of notification Mhhossein
- diff of notification Vice regent
- diff of notification Stefka Bulgaria
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Idealigic
Link 1 shows a 2019 WP:ANI dispute where Mhhossein and Stefka Bulgaria were strongly warned against making personal attacks, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and edit-warring in articles related to political oppositions to the current regime in Iran.
Then WP:GS/IRANPOL seems to have been created to also help in this topic area, leading to blocks of several editors. Also a WP:CRP restriction to stop edit warring in this topic was implemented in People’s Mujahedin of Iran.
- Despite all of this, Mhhossein is still continuing to treat the talk page at People’s Mujahedin of Iran as a battleground and trying to WP:GAME the consensus building there. Mhhossein’s has received many warnings about this ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) and was blocked for 3 months for tendentious editing in a related article.
- Mhhossein makes false claims of being the victim of “personal attacks” and “harassment”: [12] [13] [14][15][16][17][18][19]
- Mhhossein often makes false reports against editors with opposing views (mainly myself and Stefka Bulgaria). [25][26][27][28][29][30]
- Mhhossein edit warring (making multiple WP:CRP violations) and tendentious editing: [31][32][33][34]
- Mhhossein WP:Stonewalling: [35][36][37][38]
- Mhhossein trying to create section headings or synth information in a misleading way: [39]
- Mhhossein’s WP:SEALIONing: Mhhossein's apparent agenda involves putting as much slanderous material as they can add to the article (even though the article is already filled with such content) while removing as many opposing narratives as possible: [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
- Mhhossein sometimes uses very questionable sources for this: [49][50] [51], or critiques reliable sources when these don’t suit their POV: [52][53], or WP:SYNTHs information from sources: [54][55][56].
Vice regent has been as persistent as Mhhossein in trying to fill the article with as much slanderous content as possible while trying to exclude opposing narratives (although VR's overall approach tends to be more subtle and polite): [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]
VR has also been a very persistent edit warrior at People’s Mujahedin of Iran. For example, the most recent WP:AN case (Link 2) where Vice regent broke the article’s WP:CRP restrictions while Mhhossein tried to falsely blame me and Stefka Bulgaria for this (there El_C suggested that it may be time to bring this to Arbitration).
After this, VR continued edit warring making another CRP violation, and I warned them that if they made another CRP violation I would have to report it, and they did made another CRP violation. That's 3 CRP violations in a less than a month, with even two mysterious IPs making another CRP violation in favour of Mhhossein's and VR's POV pushing (with both Mhhossein and VR defending the IP when I tried to report it). Since all regards for policy seem to have gone out the window in that article (and admins don’t seem to want to get involved there anymore) I agree with El_C that it may be time for Arbitration.
Statement by Mhhossein
Statement by Vice regent
Idealgic's statement that I am "trying to fill the article with as much slanderous content as possible
" is the core issue here. A group of users (Stefka Bulgaria, Alex-h, Ypatch, BarcrMac, MA Javadi, Idealigic, Nika2020 etc) are trying to whitewash People's Mujahedin of Iran of anything they consider "slander". They see their campaign as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in favor of what they call the "democratic" opposition ([65][66]). But what they consider "slander" is quite verifiable:
- They said that the idea that MEK's alliance with Iraq had made it unpopular in Iran "doesn't make sense" and tried to remove it (this RfC), even though I provided 19 sources. They tried removing it again (this RfC) until Vanamonde93 closed the RfC commenting "
This RfC attempts to remove that content altogether, which will not fly
." - They say that allegations that MEK operates like a cult are disputed and come from Iran, yet I provided 15 scholarly sources that argue that MEK meets the definition of a cult. Despite this they amassed 10 votes in support (proposal "A" in this RfC) but Vanamonde closed the RfC as "consensus against proposal A" because "
sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor
". - They say that MEK didn't take part in the 1991 Iraqi uprisings (see this RfC), yet Mhhossein provided 12 sources that say it did.
- Idealigic said Iraq's participation in MEK's Iran-Iraq war operations was "disputed". Yet I provided 10 scholarly sources that say Iraq took part. One uninvolved user commented that any denial of Iraqi involvement in the Iran-Iraq war operations "
strains credibility
".
The above discussions and RfCs exhibit a pattern:
- One of them proposes whitewashing MEK in a way that violates policy.
- Someone (usually me or Mhhossein) points out the policy violation.
- They stonewall the discussion (example); derail it (here I wanted to correct a simple error yet the discussion was repeatedly derailed); counter with unreliable sources ([67], this analysis); or just ignore.
- Votes come pouring in to support #1 like you wouldn't believe. Some admit they don't read the RfC before voting.
- An admin is forced to intervene: mostly Vanamonde, (but admin TonyBallioni has intervened too).
- After #5 the group sometimes adheres to policy, but other times repeats this cycle gradually exhausting others
I've noticed similar behavior by this group elsewhere, eg Stefka repeatedly argued Nonie Darwish was a reliable source on Islam (here, here, Rondolinda also jumped in) causing a previously uninvolved user Hemiauchenia to say that Stefka was "a tenacious anti-islam POV-pusher".
Regarding my supposed CRP violation: the sequence of edits were complicated, so I sought clarification here; I've offered to apologize if I did violate it.
Agree that arbitration is needed.VR talk 05:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Stefka Bulgaria
Statement by Ymblanter
Unfortunately I can not really say much here. The dispute around this article predates the institution of GS in the area for several years; I remember Mhhossein and Stefka Bulgaria being regularly featured at ANI in relation to the dispute around this very article. I am not active in the area, though I have applied general sanctions a few times, as a response to requests at AN/ANI/RFPP as far as I remember. My impression is that this is indeed an issue related to behavior of the users. If we had a mechanism similar to AE for general sanctions, I would advocate considering the issue there, but we do not have such mechanism, and ANI does not work as usual, so I would say I weakly support acceptance, unless there are better ideas how we can treat this.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Idealigic, as an arbitration case that ought to outline longstanding misconduct in the MEK article (and spillover disputes on other pages) over the course of years, it looks bad that you only present evidence against Mhhossein but not Stefka Bulgaria, seeing as they are pretty much the leading two voices in the opposing camps, and who are probably comparable in that regard. I say it looks bad because your view is more aligned with Stefka Bulgaria and misaligned with Mhhossein's.
I'd also correct you that Consensus required was not implemented with the IRANPOL GS. I proposed it a couple of years ago (before the GS), to which participants unanimously agreed. Anyway, Committee members and reviewers, here's the rundown: some progress can be made in the MEK article so long as there's a dedicated admin keeping a close eye, but it's taxing and time-consuming. I did it for a year or so, then it got too much. Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping), as well, did so for about a year or so, until he too had had enough.
So, as of a few months ago, not only has there not been a dedicated admin helping with the unending disputes that plague the MEK page, no admin can be found to respond to even isolated requests, like, whatsoever (for obvious and understandable reasons, I'd say). What to do? Not sure, really. I'm missing a lot of details, especially from the last year or so (the Vanamonde era). But something should be done because, as it stands, this is broken and a timesink. I, for one, have run out of ideas and out of energy available to devote to this. Not sure how effective it'd be to absorb the MEK topic (entire IRANPOL GS?) into the ACDS regime. Possibly, but I kinda doubt that it can turn the tide. Who knows, though. Wouldn't hurt, I guess. El_C 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- RE: Community and ArbCom Sanctions — @Robert McClenon: ah, a dreamer, I see. I respect that. El_C 01:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Alexis Jazz
- @4nn1l2: is this case of interest to you? (I don't know, if it's not you can ignore this) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Iran)
I urge the ArbCom to open a full case to review the evidence and identify and sanction any editors who have been disruptive.
I moderated a dispute over the wording of a sentence in the lede section on the MEK article in late May 2021. The resolution of the specific dispute was successful, but it was clear to me that this was another area of battleground editing because the area has been a real battleground in the past. The lede section is far too long, probably because editors are putting everything, including kitchen sinks, into the lede, due to multiple opinions on what is important. The article talk page is difficult to read. I didn't try to assess it or determine who was at fault. (As a moderator, I was trying to maintain neutrality, and was becoming impatient.) However, unless somebody assesses the history and determines fault, the allegations and fault-finding will continue and worsen. ArbCom is the appropriate body to review the record and impose sanctions.
ArbCom should convert the existing community sanctions into ArbCom sanctions, but what is needed at this time is also an evidentiary hearing to identify and discipline disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I have at least one comment.
Community and ArbCom Sanctions
I have seen the comment made in this and other ArbCom case requests that ArbCom sanctions are more effective than community sanctions, because ArbCom sanctions are managed by Arbitration Enforcement. The question is why we have two sanctions regimes with different degrees of effectiveness. I urge that ArbCom consider how to improve the application of community-ordered sanctions. Can ArbCom authorize the use of Arbitration Enforcement for all community sanction topics? If not, can ArbCom encourage the community to request ArbCom acceptance of all community sanction topics by motion? (That seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. Why not just authorize AE for all sanction topics?) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Modern Iranian politics: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Modern Iranian politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Awaiting comments, though I do note there's a lot of history in this post, the vast majority of the edits complained about in the bullet points are old, very few from this year. That said, GS has been in place for a while and there does appear to be ongoing issues. I'd especially like to hear from @El C:, @Ymblanter: and @Vanamonde93:, the admins who have enforced the GS in the past year. WormTT(talk) 14:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I look forward to comments from Vanamonde and El C to join what Ymblanter has said. I remain skeptical about the virtue of the committee regularly subsuming GS into DS without any kind of community consensus for us to do so but do recognize the value and desire of using AE to handle reports. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: are you suggesting a full case? I haven't looked at the links provided yet (but will) but opening a full case, to examine conduct of particular editors, makes me far less uneasy than just a GS into DS by motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: re:"Is there a way to make community imposed sanctions eligible for AE" this is something the committee is currently discussing as part of WP:DS2021 and a possible pathway will (hopefully) be part of what is presented for community feedback when we reach that stage. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Accept Having now read the linked threads and based on the input provided here I think that there is work to be done in examining conduct in a formal way and that the needs go beyond merely making this AE eligible - in particular I note the utter frustration that the 3 admin (Ymblanter, El C, and Vanamonde) who have spent the most time on this topic, even with the backing of GS, have come to feel. There's a lot going on with this topic, that has produced walls of text that have made it hard to untangle, and admin who made real effort to untangle it indicate issues continue. These are 3 important signs than an ArbCom case may be a productive way of handling this dispute. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: are you suggesting a full case? I haven't looked at the links provided yet (but will) but opening a full case, to examine conduct of particular editors, makes me far less uneasy than just a GS into DS by motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to accept this dispute, but awaiting statements from uninvolved administrators. If I vote to accept, I'll leave a more detailed rationale. Additionally, I have made a preliminary decision not to recuse from this case. I have closed an RfC in the topic area, but I believe any involvement I've had to be "purely in an administrative role" (WP:UNINVOLVED); anyone who wishes me to recuse should leave a message on my talk page as soon as possible. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would love comments on whether we should, as Barkeep so eloquently puts it, "subsume" GS into DS here. I am of a mind that ArbCom should be increasingly taking on GS so that the advantages of DS, such as using AE, can be realized. As I see it, if the community has consensus to institute GS, it should follow that we, as representatives of the community, would also be able to pass DS in an area. But I do think we should do this process one at a time, and also ensure the community is behind us. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning accept, waiting for a few more comments. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)