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
v t e

Case opened on 18:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Case closed on 16:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

• 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)
• BarcrMac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex-h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Link 1
• Link 2
• Link 3

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 treating the talk page as a battleground through Uncivil comments:[7][8][9][10][11]

• Mhhossein makes false claims of being the victim of “personal attacks” and “harassment”: [12] [13] [14][15][16][17][18][19]

• Mhhossein trying to invalidate RfCs on the article’s talk page:[20][21][22][23][24]

• 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.

Well, my "optimized solution" which I suggested to Vice Regent included something like an Arbcom report. However, as El_C mentioned, the report is not showing the important details and developments. Anyway, I guess we can not address the developments of MEK page without considering the history of the page and the fact that this page had been of a great interest to pro-MEK users and socks ("It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)"– quote from an uninvolved admin). I would not expect such an unsual presence from the pro-MEK accounts when I did make my first edit on the talk page of the article. At the time, I did not know that a dozens of those pro-MEK socks were identified by TheTimesAreAChanging. Add to this, my well-evidenced report.

On my part, I devoted time to talkpage discussions and tried to build consensus among the involved users. I addressed multiple series of unilateral mass edits (For instance see "Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits"-It was followed by the 6th round!). At last long, a very helpful restriction, i.e. Wikipedia:Consensus required, was implemented after I complained about the edit war waves by the pro-MEK users (see "New wave of edit war"). It was a great (if not the greatest) improvement indeed, thanks to El_C's efforts and suggestions. I had always been the supporter of the page stability and I am keeping this idea till now (see latest comment saying "stability matters"). Moreover, I think El_C can verify it was me and Saff V. who asked him to resume watching the page [65], while Stefka Bulgria et al. did not care what was happening.

Among other things, a big problem was that their "own interpretations that contradict what the sources say" (quote from an uninvolved admin). For example, it was not only me telling them that the much repeated allegation of misinformation campaign against MEK is not an excuse for removing reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria would use this excuse over and over (you can search for "misinformation campaign" in the talkpage archive), until he was told by Vanamonde here that it was not an acceptable excuse. Here Vanamonde added that he was "particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism." Similarly, they would object things even supported by 20 reliable sources (10 of them being scholarly ones)[66]. 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" [67] 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.

They took me to ANI (see the closing comment), hounded me even to my adminship request on Wikimedia Commons and took me to SPI (see El_C's response).

Sorry for this long text, I just meant to provide the details of what the MEK page developments. Later, Stefka Bulgaria decreased his activities and it was Idealigic who used to edit more and more. I will add more details on focusing on the latest developments where Idealigic is mainly involved. So, yes, there should be an Arbcom case here. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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, Rondolinda 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 ([68][69]). 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:

1. One of them proposes whitewashing MEK in a way that violates policy.
2. Someone (usually me or Mhhossein) points out the policy violation.
3. 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 ([70], this analysis); or just ignore.
4. Votes come pouring in to support #1 like you wouldn't believe. Some admit they don't read the RfC before voting.
5. An admin is forced to intervene: mostly Vanamonde, (but admin TonyBallioni has intervened too).
6. 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)[reply]

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. Worm^TT(talk) " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">14:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm satisfied that we should be accepting a case here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Just a note for those who might be watching but the committee is currently figuring out logistics around this case which may take us a day or two more to sort out. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Accept. As community processes for dealing with topic-wide conduct disputes have matured, ArbCom has had to handle fewer and fewer "traditional" cases (as opposed to cases in our exclusive jurisdiction, such as ADMINCOND, private information, etc.). This is a good trend, but this case presents the rightful exception. The topic area in question has been the subject of complex dispute (with roots outside Wikipedia) for years; things have been (barely) held together by the thankless efforts of a couple uninvolved administrators who now no longer have the capacity to play that role. Because processes short of ArbCom cannot be reasonably expected to improve matters in this topic area, I vote to accept. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Leaning accept, waiting for a few more comments. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• accept Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Barkeep. Katie^talk 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept --BDD (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept the fact that admins have tried to deal with this but were overwhelmed and gave up in despair makes it an arbcom problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per all of the above. – bradv^🍁 12:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, also per the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

2) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, including opinion pieces, or original research is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise. This may involve the wider community, if necessary, through dispute resolution mechanisms like noticeboards and Requests for Comment. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally and by respecting the outcomes of reached after dispute resolution.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

5) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

6) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

7) Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

8) Community-authorized general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

1) This case concerns editing around Iranian politics with a particular focus on editing about the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). In recent years there have been dozens of talk page debates and RfCs regarding wording for these topics. Discussions are dogged by accusations of sockpuppetry, attempts to subvert consensus, and POV-pushing. The topic was placed under General Sanctions and several editors have been topic-banned; however, the conflict continues.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

2) There have been multiple attempts at using dispute resolution options in this topic area, including Requests for Comments and use of content noticeboards. These attempts at dispute resolution have not been effective (e.g. El C's evidence. Vanamonde's evidence). These attempts have sometimes suffered from repetitive topics (e.g. [71][72]) or low participation (e.g. [73]). Many have failed to reach consensus (e.g. [74][75]). Parties to the case have regularly challenged the close of RfCs (e.g. [76][77])

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

3) BarcrMac has engaged in tendentious editing in the topic area. He has engaged in edit warring which led two blocks. He was given 3 month topic ban for his misuse of sources.[78] Since the expiration of his topic ban he has returned to the topic area stonewalling discussions to attempt to achieve his preferred point of view regardless of the content of sources used in claims.(Vanamonde's evidence, [79]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

4) Idealigic has engaged in battleground editing. They have bludgeoned and stonewalled discussions (e.g. [80] [81]). They have frequently engaged in whataboutism (e.g. [82], [83] [84]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

5) Mhhossein has engaged in battleground and uncivil behavior. [85][86][87][88][89]

Passed 11 to 2 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

6) Stefka Bulgaria has engaged in bludgeoning, stonewalling, and degrading of discussions. They have filed verbose RfCs in an attempt to railroad preferred changes,[90][91] regardless of the content of sources used in claims.[92][93]

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

7) Vice regent has at times shown a civil battleground mentality [94][95] including a violation of a consensus required restriction. [96]

Passed 11 to 2 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

1) All edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

3) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:

• moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
• word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
• bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
• sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.

Passed 11 to 2 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

4) BarcrMac (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

5) Idealigic (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

6.1) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.

Passed 10 to 1 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

6.2) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 13 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

7) Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 12 to 0 at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

8) Vice regent (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.