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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. This is perhaps the key principle for me in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good work on this principle. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very well said. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1. Beeblebrox did you intend to not vote for this principle? Guessing it's an oversight hence the ping. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Barkeep49: my bad, thanks for the heads up.  Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I take no issue with the "everyone to agree" wording, I think its a good paraphrasing of the intent of WINNING, which is itself highly based on BATTLEGROUND. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. – bradv^🍁 16:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I absolutely support the general remedy but hope that the "not convincing everyone to agree." could be revised – that's not really what the linked essay says, is it? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this principle comes from WP:BLUDGEON. For me the core idea is that sometimes consensus on Wikipedia means something other than everyone agreeing. For instance a person can be part of consensus with statements like "I disagree but don't want to stand in the way of this" or "I disagree but it's clear I will need to work to change people's minds in the future". So perhaps the essay needs a tweak but I think the wording is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the wording "not convincing everyone to agree", but the wording is not taken from the linked essay. Either the link should go to whichever policy/guideline/essay inspired this phrase, or it should be removed. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sdrqaz's suggestion on the talk page I have changed the link to WP:UNANIMOUS. Courtesy ping to @David Fuchs, CaptainEek, Casliber, Beeblebrox, SoWhy, Bradv, and L235:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. My preference for the first sentence is "The Wikipedia community imposes general sanctions on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment." The current text implies that all general sanctions are community-imposed, while in fact ArbCom imposes most "general sanctions". But I know this is a stupid hill to die on, so I'll support the current text as well. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   See also: Special:Diff/1043628210, Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. SoWhy 16:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Katie^talk 14:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. – bradv^🍁 16:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

To resolve the potential ambiguity, how about changing the first sentence to begin: "Community-authorized general sanctions are imposed on certain ...". General sanctions are imposed both by ArbCom and by the community, but only ArbCom imposes "discretionary" sanctions, that is, those delegated to the discretion of administrators. – bradv^🍁 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with the wording suggested by either Brad or L235 as I have never been in love with this formulation of the idea. I will note that community GS can (and does) delegate power to the discretion of administrators so that's not actually the difference. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording as proposed. – bradv^🍁 16:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think we should use the actual article name People's Mujahedin of Iran in the finding instead of "MEK" though, maybe with "MEK" in parenthesis. Regards SoWhy 16:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. BDD (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

We should use the name of the article as decided by the community, and not an abbreviation. I.e. People's Mujahedin of Iran rather than "MEK". – bradv^🍁 20:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that full name is better than the acronym here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked since that's basically just a cosmetic change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1][2]) or low participation (e.g. [3]). Many have failed to reach consensus (e.g. [4][5]). Parties to the case have regularly challenged the close of RfCs (e.g. [6][7])

Support:

1. I will just note that the use of e.g. here (and in other FoF) frequently indicates a non-exhaustive list. This to me was one of the most interesting things about this dispute. Because you have editors, in very good faith and frequently with uninvolved assistance, attempt to use our dispute resolution methods with-out much success repeatedly. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. SoWhy 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. BDD (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.[8] 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, [9]).

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. SoWhy 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support generally. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support based primarily on the misuse of sources. (Also noting, in a passing, that this editor has been inactive for the past two months.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I will support on the general substance, despite my comments below. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I see that we've used the term "stonewalling" multiple times in this decision, but it's not linked anywhere. It's not really a term I've seen used often in disputes regarding the consensus building efforts on Wikipedia - my understanding of "stonewalling" is refusal to co-operate, well, these individuals are in dispute - we accept that it's bitter, per Principle 2, do we expect instant co-operation? I'm simply not understanding what behaviours in "stonewalling" we're expecting these editors (and indeed all our editor base) to be moving away from.
I can think of behaviours that might be considered stonewalling (the main one would be I didn't hear that, but also WP:BLUDGEONING, and indeed, the obvious WP:STONEWALL) but if these behaviours are being displayed, they should be explained and called out specifically. I also note the difference between WP:STONEWALL and WP:STONEWALLING, hence the need for clarity. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Vanamonde's explanation of some of the behaviours - such as using process details (in particular, the consensus-required provision) to derail or prevent changes that they obviously oppose to be a good way of showing the problematic behaviour. That, indeed, would be stonewalling, and has happened here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4) Idealigic has engaged in battleground editing. They have bludgeoned and stonewalled discussions (e.g. [10] [11]). They have frequently engaged in whataboutism (e.g. [12], [13] [14]). Idealigic has reverted good faith non-substantive edits without adequate explanation. [15]

Support

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Change is acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per strike. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. SoWhy 15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree fully with NYB on this one, as well. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12. I'll support this based on the overall record, while noting that the line between a knowledgeable editor's providing detailed information and arguments (which is a good thing) and overburdening the discussion with an excess of text (which is a bad thing) can be a highly subjective one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The last diff is a talk page edit...? Saw one in other evidence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm struggling with that last diff too. It is a talk page edit, not a revert - what am I missing? Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting clarification per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my request for clarification. Regards SoWhy 09:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In deep diving through the edit history thatsentencee is wrong. Stefka did the reverting and Idealgic merely supported it. Thanks to everyone for catching this. It should be struck and as a substantive change, we probably need confirmation of support from those who've already voted. Ping David Fuchs, Casliber, Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, Beeblebrox, and Bradv: Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that change. Katie^talk 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5) Mhhossein has engaged in battleground and uncivil behavior. [16][17][18][19][20]

Support:

1. I will just note that I found some of the "counter evidence" about Mhhossein compelling. In particular I think there were many moments of genuine care about others (i.e. the wishes to all at the start of COVID) and several attempts at good faith. That ultimately will factor into my decision about what remedy I support and so I note it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. SoWhy 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Also echoing Barkeep. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I understand the supporters' reasons, but I'm reluctant to support a finding if there's been no misconduct for the past six-plus months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I align more with NYB here. If folks have improved, I am not so sure we should be calling them out on it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The most recent of these edits is from eight months ago. Do those supporting see continuing issues more recently? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I have a couple of other diffs I don't love from February in my notes but nothing more recent. For me, however, the pattern goes back for a couple of years and so absent of more recent evidence is not evidence of absence for me, nor was that even claimed in the counter evidence offered or the analysis done. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6) Stefka Bulgaria has engaged in bludgeoning, stonewalling, and degrading of discussions. They have filed verbose RfCs in an attempt to railroad preferred changes,[21][22] regardless of the content of sources used in claims.[23][24]

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. SoWhy 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per my comment on FOF 4 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Vice regent has at times shown a civil battleground mentality [25][26] including a violation of a consensus required restriction. [27]

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. SoWhy 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. – bradv^🍁 20:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weakly support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I'm somewhere between weak and full support on this. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do not see a pattern of misconduct reaching the level of an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. At times? Perhaps. But I fail to see how that makes it a necessary FoF. Especially compared to the other parties here, I think ViceRegent was much more reasonable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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) i) The community-authorized general sanctions for post-1978 Iranian politics are hereby superseded and replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) 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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. The difficulty in finding uninvolved administrators to help in this topic area is a major reason, coupled with what I see as the helpful ideas in remedy 2 and 3 which are predicated on this passing, why I think it is necessary. AE has proven successful at drawing administrator attention to specific conduct issues more than AN/ANI. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Barkeep49 is right on: we should assume the community-authorized discretionary sanctions as ArbCom's own because R2/R3 depends on us doing so and because the AE noticeboard can be more effective than our current methods of requesting community-authorized discretionary sanctions enforcement. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I would suggest changing "rescinded and are replaced" to just "replaced" for clarity reasons. Since (ii) and (iii) necessitates continuance, it seems weird for (i) to explicitly mention a rescindment. After all, "replace" already implies that the old GS are no longer in place. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 14:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. – bradv^🍁 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. BDD (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. With copyedit changing "rescinded" to "superseded," per below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Absolutely. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Regarding "rescinded and replaced", that wording has been in use for quite a while (see for example COVID in '21 and eCigs in '15). I'm not saying that it shouldn't be changed (if anything, saying something has been rescinded almost feels like "cancelling", which then makes the "we take it all over anyway" section a bit weird) but that there's historical precedent for the language. I'm fine with either wording, for what it's worth, since I do not see any practical difference between them. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about substituting "superseded" for "rescinded"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pretty happy with that. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2) The following rules shall apply to all RfCs related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed:

• Editors who have made substantial edits (in any namespace) related to the topic of the RfC, broadly construed, are considered parties to the RfC.
• Parties to the RfC may only participate in their own designated section.
• Any uninvolved administrator may move the comments of parties to the RfC to the designated section.
• Participation by parties to the RfC will be considered on an equal basis with any other editors when determining consensus.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Second choice to RfC moderation 2 which would enable this but not require it across the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support both this and #2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. second choice to RfC 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to #3. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm okay with this being a possible tool where needed but I don't think we should or need to mandate it for every RFC. Regards SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. While I appreciate the thought behind it, this strikes me as straying a bit further into "bespoke remedy" territory than I'm generally comfortable with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. In thinking this through further I could support this within the People's Mujahedin of Iran topic area (broadly construed) as a second choice to RfC moderation 2 but have not seen evidence that would justify it in the entire post-1978 Iranian political topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't think this should be mandated for all RfC's, although perhaps we could authorize uninvolved administrators to apply it to an RfC within the topic area. – bradv^🍁 20:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with Bradv. I'm happy for uninvolved administrators to require this on a page in the area, but not happy to blanket require this. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. As above. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per other opposers above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. That is a lot of bureaucracy to force onto folks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I agree with SoWhy in that it seems like a useful tool in the kit, but mandating is problematic, as there will undoubtedly be not-as-controversial RFCs that will then be needlessly complicated. However, that lends itself to the question of "when would an uninvolved admin (UA) step in?" and whether said UA can impose these restrictions after an RFC has already started... I guess mandating is the only way to make sure it works every time, but I do not particularly like that option. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This probably goes without saying, but if this remedy passes and any uninvolved administrator thinks it's not working, bring it to ARCA and I will probably vote to rescind it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) The following rules shall apply to all RfCs related to People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed:

• Editors who have made substantial edits (in any namespace) related to the topic of the RfC, broadly construed, are considered parties to the RfC.
• Parties to the RfC may only participate in their own designated section.
• Any uninvolved administrator may move the comments of parties to the RfC to the designated section.
• Participation by parties to the RfC will be considered on an equal basis with any other editors when determining consensus.

Support:

1. Second choice to Remedy 2 (RfC moderation 1). In addition to and not instead of Remedy 3 (RfC moderation 2). I hope this is sufficiently narrowed if we make the scope MEK only and not all of Iranian politics. By the time things get to the RfC stage on Talk:MEK, I think they're pretty much always at a level where we want this rule to kick in by default. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Noting this has been renamed and the first choice now refers to RfC sectioning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As with above, we shouldn't be forcing this complexity on all RfCs in the topic area. – bradv^🍁 20:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Better, but I'd rather this was implemented on a case by case basis by an uninvolved admin if they deem it necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer the broader topic scope. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Seeing as I am opposed to the main remedy, I also am opposed to its daughter remedy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice to RfC 1. As noted in the motion, these were all technically available to uninvolved administrators before. However, by putting them in the decision I hope ArbCom sends a message that we will have the back of any uninvolved administrator who uses these methods and that these methods are appropriate responses to the issues documented with our DR processes to date. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support both this and #1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's clear that admins acting on their own have tried to curb this problem, but unfortunately they have not been able to do so, so here we are. Putting this in writing as an ArbCom decision hopefully will make it easier for admins to be more effective in this area going forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice to RfC 1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 10:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Case evidence is compelling that RfCs have been uniquely dysfunctional in this area. While I can't get behind the proposals to mandate specific restrictions on them going forward, I do want to signal support for uninvolved administrators applying restrictions where they're needed. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support with particular emphasis on this topic-area, with the thought that if it works here, there could be a discussion of whether it might help in other areas as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. This is a clever and creative solution, and I think ArbCom should be more willing to implement these sort of particularized and inventive remedies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This would be a substantial modification to the DS procedures, and would impact other topic areas. In general, I am opposed to administrators using the authority provided by DS in order to shut down or limit good-faith content discussions. While there might be an argument that this is necessary in this topic area, extending it to all of DS would be an overreaction, and outside the scope of this case. – bradv^🍁 20:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I disagree with Barkeep49's statement this does not pass any powers that uninvolved administrators didn't already have under DS in that there is nothing in the descriptions of DS at our policy page that implies these tools are "DS-specific tools" (unless you are interpreting § Role of administrators to mean that admins are allowed to do this). This means (to me) that we are expanding ACDS in general, which requires action at WP:ARCA or WP:A/R/M (depending on if we are clarifying or expanding), and thus this remedy is outwith the scope of this case. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Just to clarify, this remedy, much like RFC 1 proposed above, is only within the scope of this case (post-1978 Iranian politics), yes? It's explicitly spelled out in RFC 1 but not here. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My question as well. Katie^talk 14:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is that this does not pass any powers that uninvolved administrators didn't already have under DS. For instance we know admin already use moratoriums. Instead it's designed to let uninvolved admin use these with confidence in this topic area. The ArbCom Seal of Approval if you will. The reason the topic area is mentioned in remedy 2 is that r2 would require something (sectioned RfCs) while this instead notes the tool's availability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would seemingly imply that R2 and R3 could pass, since R3 is DS-specific, and R2 is case-specific. If we go down that road, then I feel almost like this should be at WP:A/R/M instead of here. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for opposing R3 is that I don't think it's a good tool in this area. If it fails to pass, or for that matter if this fails to pass, admin could still use the ideas. So I don't think it needs to go to A/R/M because, at least for me, this doesn't change the powers of DS and these tool recommendations are specific to this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake I've added "and/" to the bit about word and diff limits. I am presuming this was the intent, to allow both. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv and Primefac: would the following wording alleviate your concerns? Uninvolved administrators are encouragedreminded to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC) and are encouraged to take appropriate actions within post-1978 Iranian politics broadly construed to achieve this goal. These actions may include, but are not limited to: If so I would have no issue with making such a change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are proposing these actions within the case scope (per my initial query), sure, as it would essentially be a "light" version of Remedy 2 (in which these actions are mandated). I think it is too late to change this particular motion, though, given the support for the original wording. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That still implies that limiting good-faith discussion is within the purview of admins in DS topic areas, but ArbCom has to my knowledge never actually authorized any such measures, and I would argue that such "moratoriums" violate ARBPOL by regulating content rather than conduct. I would much prefer some sort of remedy that allows uninvolved administrators to remove problematic editors from the RfC, in the case that the list of topic bans below either don't pass or don't work. – bradv^🍁 20:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Trying to get a bit of clarity on your thinking. Did measures such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (mandated and made binding by motion) also violate ARBPOL? In it, the Committee made binding the conclusions of an RfC for three years, which implicitly constitutes a moratorium on the effect of future RfCs to change the results of that RfC. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between ArbCom dictating the terms of a discussion in order to resolve a conflict, and granting administrators the authority to prevent such consensus-building discussions. The former has been done several times (e.g. Macedonia), the latter is unprecedented. – bradv^🍁 17:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Page restrictions provides that administrators may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project (emphasis added). Are the listed measures really not "reasonable measure[s]" that are "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project"? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.1) On pages related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed, uninvolved administrators may require that, prior to the initiation of an RfC, the editors supporting each viewpoint in the dispute collectively write, in good faith, a concise summary of the arguments they intend to make.

Support:

1. Per my comments below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   For any undecided arbs: I don't think Barkeep49 and I disagree that this is something admins can do as a DS, whether we pass this remedy or not. And this remedy doesn't mandate admins to do this, it just tells admins that they can. If admins think this is a bad idea, fine, no harm done by this remedy – it just won't be used. But let's put it in the toolbox, because a look through WP:AELOG tells us that admins are reluctant to try this kind of thing unless we specifically say they can, and I think this remedy could work quite well. It also could be ineffective, but we won't know unless we try, and I don't see much of a downside compared with the potential benefits. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. I think this is a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 10:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't think this adds much beyond what's in 3, but am likewise happy to back up admins who want to use this as a tool. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my note below Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think this creeps into too much admin involvement with regards to suitability of RfCs in general, versus using them to structure guardrails to prevent RfCs from deteriorating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too complicated, and aren't editors in an RfC supposed to write concisely anyway? Or are you asking each side to get together and hold a separate RfC in order to draft an opening statement? – bradv^🍁 20:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seems overly complicated and unnecessary if 3 passes which looks likely. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. per SoWhy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think 3 above if more helpful, and I can imagine a scenario in which having to prepare these opening statements might harden editors' positions rather than promote consensus-building. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. I long for the day that editors will actually be concise when asked, but I'm afraid this has little likely chance of success. If someone doesn't want to be concise, they just won't be. Also, this strikes me as mostly a chance for editors to learn each other's strategies ahead of time, and be more devious in their counter-measures. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

• Proposing for consideration (to be passed along with, not exclusive to, R3). If this is passed, an administrator who imposes this requirement would have discretion over where the concise summaries are posted (at the top?), any word/link limits, time limits for preparation, what "good faith" means, what should happen if editors on the same "side" disagree about their reasons, whether the summaries may be edited after the start of the RfC, etc. Admins may already have these powers in DS topics, but I want to be clear that this is specifically available here. This is intended to supplement WP:RFCBEFORE's requirement to discuss and to make it easier for uninvolved editors to understand the dispute. It would also forestall attempts to derail RfCs with irrelevant arguments or strawman responses, because the summaries of positions would already be present. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is permitted under DS. So in that sense an uninvolved administrator may choose to do it. I just think it's a bad idea and not a practice we should be encouraging in this topic area. We already have a fair amount of meta arguing around RfCs - see the FoF about closes regularly being challenged and see Vanamonde's and El C's evidence about issues that happened during/before. Adding a prerequisite layer seems like it opens another area for procedural challenges (unneeded), promotes a one side vs the other mentality rather than a consensus finding one (already too present in this area), and could impede the finding of consensus rather than assisting it by creating a barrier to using a dispute resolution method. For those reasons I can't endorse putting ArbCom's stamp on it. But I do applaud you Kevin for finding a way to avoid a situation where arbs have to first choice/second choice their preference. That's a great innovation I hope we remember in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: I agree in theory with much of this, and I agree that admins should use this as one of many tools carefully and with consideration. But I can't agree with your conclusion that ArbCom shouldn't put this in the toolbox. By the time a dispute gets to the RfC stage, the parties are not going to come to consensus on their own. That's why they're bringing it to an RfC – WP:RFCBEFORE must not have solved the dispute. Let's make it easier for outside editors to understand and fully contextualize the dispute. As for procedural challenges, because we're authorizing DS, individual administrators should be able to dispatch any challenges rather efficiently, and presumably the administrator who imposes this requirement is willing to hear any allegations of violations. Let's tell admins they can experiment with this tool; we're not going to learn more about whether it works well just by talking about it. There's some resistance to "bespoke sanctions", so I doubt admins will consider this a tool they can use unless we explicitly say it, even if they technically have the authority under normal DS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still mulling this one over, but my initial thoughts are that it can be inferred from a combination of points 2 and 4 (word limits and sectioned commenting); one could reasonably interpret those to imply that an uninvolved admin can say "you have 250 words for your opening statement and 250 words for any replies" which would be essentially their "concise summary". Primefac (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. The following topic-bans are definitely a "light touch" approach to disruption in this area. I will note that a pattern across other topics with misusing sources is extremely problematic, and other arbitrators might suggest harsher sanctions for such behavior, even if limited to this area. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. The recent evidence at BarcrMac is lighter than the evidence for the other people for whom I am supporting a TBAN. However, the fact that they were already topic banned for a short time and disruption continued afterwards suggests a warning would be inappropriate. I would be willing to hear an appeal in as soon as six months though. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. – bradv^🍁 14:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Worm^TT(talk) 15:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Noting that I gave the prior topic ban weight in deciding to vote for this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. – bradv^🍁 14:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) Mhhossein (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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice to 6.2. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Distant second choice to 6.2 Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to 6.2. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Unless something drastically changes with regard to 6.2, this won't be necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comments on the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I believe that the combination of 6.1 and 6.2 will be sufficient here will be sufficient; this more general topic ban can always be imposed later if it turns out the other remedies are not sufficient. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think a narrow topic ban is the far better option here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

• @KrakatoaKatie: Hey, your votes here and at 6.2 both say "second choice", FYI. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gah, sorry, had somebody interrupt me and I thought I'd fixed it to what was in my mind. Fixed. Katie^talk 11:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

1. Third choice to 6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I can certainly support a warning. I'm considering the topic ban, but I do think I'd be happier with the narrow scope Barkeep suggests. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Noting that I do not believe this is necessary if 6.2 passes, and therefore this vote should be considered an oppose in that situation. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is support this at a minimum. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Third choice. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. A warning can be issued regardless of a TBAN. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. Mhhossein has come very close to crossing a line, but IMO has not quite done so. Regardless of the outcome, I hope he'll take his to heart and act accordingly. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Same thoughts as SoWhy (i.e. we can do both). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. A warning should be sufficient here, considering that the relevant FoF is rather dated, and that Mhhossein has already made note of the concerns about their behaviour (see talk page). – bradv^🍁 14:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I take the view that being involved to this extent in a case is warning in and of itself. If one is being mentioned in a FoF, you have absolutely been put on notice to clean up your act. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments:

It seems clear I'm not the only one somewhat on the fence when it comes to this user. I still haven't made up my mind but this should at least be an option. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I had been thinking about whether or not to propose a narrow (MEK) topic ban for Mhhossein as an alternative to a complete IRANPOL topic ban. But I hadn't decided if I would support it yet so hadn't done so. I note it here in case that, rather than a warning, felt like the right outcome for some Arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, I've renumbered this 6.1 for convenience, but this isn't a required thing so revert if you preferred it the other way. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it's good to have clerks become arbs, that makes perfect sense yet totally failed to occur to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. I think the disruption was severe enough that a break from the topic area is necessary for consensus to begin to be found. However, the mitigating evidence I mentioned in the FoF and the responsibility accepted on the talk page of this decision lead me to believe that a full Iranian politics topic ban is not necessary at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice to 6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think this is good middle ground that will still allow contributions in the broader topic area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice to 6. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC) First choice. Katie^talk 11:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. I can support this. Worm^TT(talk) 07:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice per Barkeep49. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice to 6.1. Mhhossein would do well to step back from this area. There's enough in the case evidence for me to endorse this, even though the evidence isn't so strong as to make it a first choice. This is better tailored to the evidence than 6. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice to 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Same thoughts as SoWhy's comment in 6.1 (i.e. we can do both). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. I am not thrilled to be here. But I find it a better option than 6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Second choice to 6.1. – bradv^🍁 14:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. With some regret. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. BDD (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Unfortunate that it had to come to this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. – bradv^🍁 14:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think VR on the whole has shown remarkable persistence at attempting to civilly find consensus. For a while I expected this meant I wouldn't support any remedy with them. However, in the end I do think they've slipped into an us vs them thinking at times, perhaps without realizing it. I have every hope and expectation that this warning will be sufficient to curb that mindset. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. SoWhy 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Katie^talk 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Duplicate struck. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Once again, I agree with Barkeep. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. – bradv^🍁 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I take the view that being involved to this extent in a case is warning in and of itself. If one is being mentioned in a FoF, you have absolutely been put on notice to clean up your act. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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.

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

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

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by GeneralNotability (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC) by GeneralNotability.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	13	0	0		·
2	National and territorial disputes	13	0	0		·
3	Neutral point of view and undue weight	13	0	0		·
4	Consensus	13	0	0		·
5	Civility	13	0	0		·
6	Personalising disputes	13	0	0		·
7	Discussion of content	13	0	0		·
8	General sanctions	13	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute & background	13	0	0		·
2	Dispute resolution	13	0	0		·
3	BarcrMac	13	0	0		·
4	Idealigic	13	0	0		·
5	Mhhossein	11	0	2		·
6	Stefka Bulgaria	13	0	0		·
7	Vice regent	11	2	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	13	0	0		·
2	RfC sectioning	4	8	1		Cannot pass	Three say second choice to remedy 3
2.1	RfC sectioning MEK	1	6	0		6	One says second choice to remedy 2
3	RfC moderation	11	2	0		·
3.1	RfC moderation (addendum)	3	7	0		Cannot pass
4	BarcrMac topic-banned	12	0	0		·
5	Idealigic topic-banned	12	0	0		·
6	Mhhossein topic-banned	4	4	0		3	Three supports are second choice to remedy 6.2
6.1	Mhhossein warned	10	1	0		·	Three votes are conditional/lower choice than 6.1
6.2	Mhhossein topic-banned (MEK)	13	0	0		·	One says second choice to remedy 6
7	Stefka Bulgaria topic-banned	12	0	0		·
8	Vice regent warned	11	1	1		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
2	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pack it up and ship it out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm not worried about passing both remedies. I only voted for the topic ban (R6.2), but I don't think it's somehow a greater rebuke if the non-enforceable warning passes as well as the enforceable topic ban. Also noting that as of my count, there's an absolute majority for FoF 4 even if reconfirmation is needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   R6.1 is now no longer passing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. I've noted that I do not support 6.1 if 6.2 is passing (which it is) - which is also my understanding of the "Third Choice" comments by David Fuchs and KrakatoaKatie, therefore it no longer passes (6 votes). I think we're good to close this case. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Katie^talk 11:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. SoWhy 18:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. BDD (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Can I get confirmation we're currently passing a warning and TBAN for Mhhossein? If so I think that seems excessive. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, on closer inspection I do agree with Barkeep. I think its a overkill to pass both, though admittedly I am opposed to the warning anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, I've made my vote on 6.1 contingent on 6.2 not passing. Therefore I believe 6.1 no longer passes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the notes accordingly. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]