Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: GeneralNotability (Talk) & CodeLyoko (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & Beeblebrox (Talk) & Casliber (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Clarification of scope

I see the scope here is "post-1978 Iranian politics". However, the nexus of the dispute is People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), which was founded in 1965. There have been some disputes about the organization's (alleged) early assassinations which started as early as 1974 (this RfC and Talk:List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran). Another point of dispute has been whether the organization was Marxist in the 1970s (here). Can we assume this arbitration covers the entirety of the MEK, or only the post-1978 part? I apologize if I'm seeming nitpicky, that is not my intent.VR _talk 15:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@VR thanks for asking. The scope was something I suggested basically by taking the scope of the GS. For now I have added broadly construed to clarify that the whole of MEK falls in the scope of the case but if there is a better scope statement it is something we could consider. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree it's a good question and I thank you for asking it. Details matter in these cases. I think Barkeep's solution works for now, we'll probably need to carefully consider the scope of any sanctions we may put forth in the proposed decision though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Related ANI report

Quick note for arbs, that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs is related to this case. MarioGom (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of meatpuppetry and canvassing

Arbitration says 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... That makes sense. But then there is a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop#Civility and Truth that says Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying...should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Well, allegations of sockpuppetry usually presume dishonesty on the part of the sockpuppet/master. So what are the guidelines or rules for discussing meatpuppetry and stealth canvassing during arbitration, whether at subpages of this arbitration or other pages? As an example, I recently made some comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat. Should I stop participation there while the arbitration is ongoing? Should I remove those comments and apologize? Should potential puppetry not be discussed at Evidence and Workshop pages?

I really, really don't want to run afoul of arbitration rules so some guidance would be appreciated.VR _talk 19:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Vice regent - That is a proposed principle in the Workshop. It isn't an ArbCom motion; it wasn't written by one of the arbitrators, but by a non-party to the case (me). First, the ArbCom will decide whether to adopt it as one of their principles. Second, other non-parties to the case may comment, in the section for comments by others. You may comment on it if you disagree with it. Third, the best means to discuss sockpuppetry is a sockpuppet investigation, and that is how you made your comments. I will let the arbitrators or clerks comment on what the proper way is to raise concerns about canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Will one of the arbitrators or clerks please respond to these questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: you can make suggestions of meatpuppetry and stealth canvassing during arbitration. You will be expected to back it up with evidence. I do not immediately see an issue with your contributions in that SPI. I am cautious because perhaps there is other context I don't know about. But assuming there is not, those kinds of comments in appropriate forums, like SPI, are OK. So there is no need to strike or apologize for them that I can tell. Of course being cautious during a case is something many editors decide to do. Ultimately those decisions are yours. Thanks for the nudge @Robert McClenon. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence phase extended and parties added

The evidence phase has been extended in this case until 17 August 2021, and the new deadlines for the workshop is 24 August 2021 with the proposed decision to be posted by 31 August 2021. The users BarcrMac and Alex-h have also been added to the case as parties. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)