Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• 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.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence difficult to curate

From my perspective, the hope would be to present evidence that provides an overview of sorts, but this is the thing: the MEK article talk page currently has 44 archived sections indexed, starting in 2005 — still, I'd stress that by archive 5, we're already at 2018. By comparison, the entire Iran country article has less than half the archives indexed, 19 of them, starting in 2003 — conversely, I'd stress that by archive 10, we're still only at 2008. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at with this first note is to impress on the Committee just how difficult it is to compile and organize evidence for this case. We literally have tens upon tens of archived sections just from the past few years alone! El_C 23:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate this challenge, I was thinking about citing something specific from the article talk page, but finding it, now that's the challenge. I really don't look forward to going through potentially tens of archive sections just to find the one thing I'm looking for. Then doing so all over again for the next thing. And the next thing. Oy. El_C 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The prominence of civil POV pushing over personalized misconduct

I'm not sure how to establish this with actual evidence (do impressions from my mind count?), but I've been finding that the MEK disputes generally don't present too many issues that involve personalized misconduct. Unless much has changed recently, personal attacks and even mere incivility tend to be quite rare. El_C 23:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93's evidence (is good evidence)

• The MEK is the nexus of the dispute — the alpha and omega.

• Contentious labels for the MEK are a particular flashpoint — yes. Kudos, Vanamonde93, for compiling evidence that outlines the chronology of the cult debates! I complain, you do. I'd also add that this naturally extends to prominent individuals who are MEK proponents/opponents. So, using the cult designation disputes example: if the MEK is said to be or not to be (whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune) a cult or cult-like, the Rajavis (Maryam and Massoud), in turn, would be cult or cult-like leaders. And so on.

• Many users not listed as parties are substantially involved in this dispute — I'd also add Alex-h to that list. El_C 11:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK is the nexus of the dispute

The history and character of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK) has been the locus of most unpleasant and unproductive argument, as well as that of most visible misconduct, within the topic area. The evidence for this is largely the absence of evidence of disruption elsewhere, but the history of Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran (henceforth Talk:MEK, for brevity) is an indicator: as of today, Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein have made nearly 2,700 edits there, and Idealigic and Vice_regent contribute some additional hundreds between them.

Contentious labels for the MEK are a particular flashpoint

The nastiest, most long-winded, and least productive line of discussions has been about how Wikipedia covers the position that the MEK is a cult. The following list is just of talk page sections about this topic, ordered chronologically. October 2019, October 2019 (2), January 2020, February 2020, March 2020, March 2020 (2), April 2020, April 2020 (2), May 2020, June 2020, September 2020, August 2020, October 2020, January 2021, February 2021, February 2021 (2), February 2021 (3).

Many users not listed as parties are substantially involved in this dispute

As I said in the case request, several users besides the named parties are deeply involved in this dispute. In my opinion, this implies that their conduct also requires scrutiny. The talk page statistics are useful to understanding this pattern ([1])

BarcrMac is a party to this dispute

@BarcrMac: (signature "Barca", if you are searching through the text of a talk page) has been substantially involved in this dispute for a while. They have received two blocks and a topic ban for their conduct on this page (see GS log at WP:GS/IRANPOL). They have returned to this dispute after their most recent sanction, having made (as a rough indicator) 25 of the last 500 talk page edits. These edits include participation in contentious discussions [2]. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch is a party to this dispute

@Ghazaalch: has made 41 of the last 500 talk page edits. These edits include participation in contentious discussions [3]. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch is a party to this dispute

Despite Ypatch's statement at the case request, contentious material about the MEK remains a core area of Ypatch's editing; he has engaged in recent contentious discussions [4], and essentially all his talk page contributions have to do with [5]. I also previously game them a TBAN from Iranian politics (see GS log).

Alex-h is a party to this dispute

I agree with El_C above that Alex-h has been substantially involved here. See page history above, and these edits t contentious discussions; [6], [7].

MA Javadi is a party to this dispute

In addition to the talk page statistics, the sheer number of edits MA Javadi has made to Talk:MEK in recent times [8] makes him obviously involved here.

Bahar1397 is a party to this dispute

In addition to the talk page statistics, Bahar1397 has participated substantially in the cult/not a cult dispute; see here.

Nika2020 is perhaps a party to this dispute

As Vice regent said below, Nika2020 has been involved here, including in contentious discussions [9]. However, his involvement has been more sporadic than that of many others [10]. Examining his behavior wouldn't hurt, but isn't as urgent.

Kazemita was a party to this dispute

The talk page history shows Kazemita1 was a participant in disputes on this talk page for a while, before he was indeffed for sock-puppetry [11]. I present this evidence not because further sanctions need to be considered against Kazemita1, but for completeness.

Saff V. was a party to this dispute

As the page history shows, Saff V. was an active participant in this dispute, before receiving a partial block from MEK and Talk:MEK, and subsequently a TBAN from post-1978 Iranian politics (see log at WP:GS/IRANPOL). To be transparent, I implemented both those sanctions. Including for context, as above.

Pahlevun was a party to this dispute

Pahlevun was involved in this dispute (see page stats above), and participated in some of its nastiest episodes, like this one. However, he has not edited in eight months, so I do not think he may be considered an active participant.

What evidences to discuss

The time span should be wide enough

In light of @El C:'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. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other users to be added

• @Bahar1397: should be added to the list. He has been actively involved since August 2020 and even started an RFC himself. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also parties to dispute: Nika2020 87 edits at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and MA Javadi with 81 edits. Will add more evidence later.VR _talk 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUSH by Mhhossein who constantly tries to expand a portrayal that the MEK is synonymous of a “cult”, even though this is already comprehensively covered in the article

Background:

• Allegations about how the MEK organizes itself (such as “romantic relationships”, “devotion to leadership”, or allegations of abuse against its members) are often described in sources as "cult-like" aspects of the MEK. The article was previously flooded with claims, allegations and quotes about this, and some of it was removed through a previous RFC.

• Still there are 3 sections in the article that cover these topics: "Cult of personality", "Human rights record", and "Ideological revolution and women's rights". The lead says “Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"”, and one of the sections says “Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult", "cult-like", or having a "cult of personality". In this post Stefka Bulgaria gives a rundown of cult-related material in the article.

WP:PUSH problem:

• Despite these topics already being comprehensively covered in the article, Mhhossein has (for years) tried flooding the article with more of this content: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
• When Stefka Bulgaria tried mentioning (once) that Khomeini (political rival of the MEK) also had a "cult of personality", Mhhossein stonewalled through their characteristic wikilawayering. In other words, Mhhossein tries to add as much "cult"-related material in the MEK article, but won't allow even a mention of this in an article about a political adversary. Idealigic (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUSH by Mhhossein through source misuse

• Adding claims not supported by the sources or without sources: [24][25][26][27][28][29]suggested title not supported“Riots” not supported

• Removing statements from reliable sources (mainly by stonewalling): [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

• Attempts to use unreliable or weak sources (often camouflage with reliable ones): theglobepostensani.iropednews and juancole“DIANE Publishing” and “The Libertarian Institute”“lobelog” and “C. Hurst & Company”theglobepostbreakingnews.symcclatchydcMiddle East Eyeblog.lefigaroNetjangmotherjonesMEK website against RSs. Idealigic (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUSH from Mhhosssein through attempts to invalidate RfCs

Mhhossein attempts to invalidate RfCs on the article talk page: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

Mhhossein (et al.) complaining to moderators when RfC results doesn’t match their POV: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. Idealigic (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUSH by Vice regent (with no regard to article's WP:CRP restrictions)

Background:

VR has been edit warring (while making WP:CRP violations) to change the lead that the MEK are in conflict with Iran (but the MEK are in conflict with Iran's Islamic Republic, not with Iran).

Similarly VR has also been edit warring to replace the word “homeland” with “Iran” (the Islamic Republic chased the MEK out of Iran, but Iran is the MEK’s homeland as supported by sources^[1]).

There is also another matter where VR edit wars to change “Iraq” with “Saddam” (WP:PUSHing “Saddam” in the article is something Mhhossein seems to have also done in the past too [62][63]). VR does this even though he said before that the war was internationally known as the “Iran-Iraq” war [64][65] (but due to word restrictions in this report I will need to skip that for now unless requested).

WP:PUSH problem:

• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran” .[66]
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested, adds ​​”Iran's request”.[67]
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested”, adds “Iran's request”.[68]
• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran”.[69] (violates CRP restrictions)
• Removes “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested”, adds “Iran.”[70]
• Removes “its homeland”, adds “Iran”.[71](violates CRP restrictions again)

VR argues that consensus for this edit is based on this comment (where they are asked to explain the change of terminology, but they never do). My view is that if VR had any doubts about consensus, he could have confirmed it with an admin or started a RFC, but instead he kept edit warring his POV into the lead. Then (together with Mhhossein), accused me and Stefka Bulgaria of violating the article’s CRP restrictions even though all we did was reinstate the longstanding version.[72][73]

WP:GAME by Vice regent and Mhhossein to remove from the lead that the MEK is the Islamic Republic’s “biggest and most active political opposition group”

• VR adds “verification-failed” tags to this sentence [74]

• I try to address VR’s “verification-failed” tags [75][76]

• Mhhossein moves content to the body [77]

• I sense their objective is just to remove this from the lead, so I reinstate the longstanding version. [78]

• VR reinstates the tags again [79] (CRP violation)

• I try to address VR’s tags a second time [80]

• VR moves this text to the body again [81]

Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUSH by Ghazaalch

Adding Ghazaalch per Vanamonde.

• This page and this post by Ghazaalch rounds up what is happening in the MEK article.

• Mainly quoting the same source from a think tank (RAND report by Goulka), Ghazaalch has been trying to add the following items to the article:[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]

Then some IPs (who are very obviously not newcomers) edit war to add the same RAND report to the lead: [99] [100] [101] [102]

When I tried to report these CRP violations Mhhossein and VR started to defend the IPs. [103]

• Ghazaalch stonewalling to remove "lead too long" tag: [104] [105] [106] Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general introduction, I am not involved in this topic but I have seen reports on administrator boards and SPI.

Sock puppetry has been an issue, from both sides

Sock puppetry has been an issue from parties on both sides of the dispute (I'm labelling as "pro-MEK" and "anti-MEK" for lack of a better term or familiarity in the topic).

anti-MEK:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi and the block of Saff V.. Besides the dispute on the main MEK page, Saff V. created articles such as Somayeh Mohammadi (former MEK) and MEK designation as terrorist organization.
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazemita1/Archive and the block of Kazemita1.

pro-MEK:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive, socking between 2017 and 2018.
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat: User:TheDreamBoat and User:Rondolinda, two users who have voted on MEK articles, share a pattern of activity in AfD. See also Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs at ANI

Sockpuppetry is a persistent problem

As addenda to evidence presented by Eostrix (#Sock puppetry has been an issue, from both sides), sockpuppetry (and also COI editing) has been a recurrent problem back to 2005. I'd like to reiterate the list of SPIs linked by Eostrix, and add the following to the "pro-MEK camp":

• Hanifjazayeri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a publicly and notorious NCRI (MEK front) spokeperson. And RezaKia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was very likely a sock [107] [108], see also consolidated contribs.
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AlborzTaha (2007-2009). Accounts in this group include: AlborzTaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tim Abbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tib72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mike Stamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Tullip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• LPW22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked on the BurritoSlayer SPI (note that this SPI contains multiple sockfarms, LPW22 is not related to the BurritoSlayer sockmaster itself, but probably related to one of the groups in Atlantic12 SPI, tag teaming with them to implement an RFC [109]).

Also problem with multiple new accounts and IPs

New IPs (such as these) have also been a problem in the page. The same with a group of new (and not so new) accounts that edit in tandem with some of the editors mentioned here. I will compile a list. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following accounts to this case: @Jushyosaha604:, @Maqdisi117:, @Shiasun:, and @KJS ml343x:

In this RFC, the closing admin says “By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed.” Mhhossein and VR (unsuccessfully) try to get the result overturned.[110][111] Then, on the next RFC,[112] the aforementioned four accounts (with very few edits at the time of their votes) show up to vote in favor of Mhhossein and VR. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria: 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)[reply]

  @Stefka Bulgaria: 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)[reply]

The IPs were blocked as socks of Kazemita1 (an editor that also relentlessly sided with Mhhossein on the MEK page). Note Mhhossein and VR siding with the IPs edit on the article’s talk page.

When @Saff V.: and @Ghazaalch: were blocked for evidence that indicated sockpuppetry, Mhhossein and VR assisted in their unblocking.[113][114]

Before VR was active on the MEK page, another editor who also constantly sided with Mhhossein on the MEK page was user:Expectant of Light (also blocked for sockpuppetry).[115]. Mhhossein also tried to assist in their unblocking.[116] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.