Initiated by 182Line (talk) at 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 182Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarioGom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ali Ahwazi
• Mhhossein
• Ghazaalch
• Iskandar323
• MarioGom

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Contacted WMF

Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Times raises many questions in How Wikipedia is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities (paywalled), reprinted in The Australian.[1] Here is a concise version:

In essence, this is the pattern. While these mentioned editors are not an exhaustive list of those involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue, they currently represent the primary contributors to these activities. 182Line (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: The core of the request is that the Wikipedia editors listed here (including yourself) have contributed to the systematic removal of human right crimes committed by Iranian government officials. 182Line (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been notified or pinged, but I acknowledge that I have seen this request. I had no time to read anything in the collapsible sections yet, but I will do it soon. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I understood the request. The core of the request is the claim that I am an Iranian official [...] involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

182Line, an obvious experienced sockpuppet, who just gamed autoconfirmed and has been recently forum shopping this as 194.50.144.202, OutBuck, and probably 175.110.69.12 would probably have no standing to open a case request per WP:PROJSOCK. I am going to proceed with my statement anyway, since I think it would make sense for ArbCom to consider case requests if they can stand on their own merits.

Three types of evidence are presented against me:

• That I have used my "clerk leverage" in discussions. Yet I participated in these discussions as a regular editor, as virtually any edit I make outside SPI. There is a long string of diffs, which look just fine to me. The filer claims I used misleading edit summaries in most of them, but what I see is nothing misleading. On the contrary, most are really specific about rationales (e.g. [54]). Given the MEK article has been highly controversial, I tend to use fairly detailed edit summaries. If there was any specific issue with any of these edits, I’m fairly sure it was already discussed in the talk page.
• That I use my "clerk influence" to derail reports against pro-IRP users. Three diffs are provided: 1) a !vote in a t-ban proposal at ANI [55], obviously done as a regular editor, and whose rationale I still stand by, 2) a comment in the same discussion [56], and 3) a comment in an SPI case [57] also offering some nuance that I still stand by.
• That I hound and request blocks. What the filer calls hounding here is sockpuppet investigation, which I have regularly done in this area for a few years. Going into details would require way more text, but ArbCom is familiar with every investigation I have performed related to a trollfarm linked to the NCRI/MEK.

If ArbCom would like to hear individualized explanations about any of these diffs or claims, let me know, and I will need a word limit extension. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing this report before but there is nothing listed on prior dispute resolution. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.[58] Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have explicitly listed all the editors 182Line named in the headers of the collapsed sections above and given the notifications that they did not. I have had no prior involvement with this and have not yet read the details of the request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion linked by UsedToBeCool was posted by user:OutBuck as their first and (apart from a subsequent markup correct) only contribution to en.wp under that username. It was reverted a few minutes later by Bbb23 [59] without explanation in the edit summary but they immediately gave OutBuck an only warning for harassment (permalink). I have no doubts that 182Line and OutBuck are the same person, but a checkuser may wish to see if they have any other accounts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Serial Number 54129: Especially post-Framgate if the WMF are approached with a complaint that can be handled on a local wiki they are going to tell the correspondent to use the appropriate processes on that wiki (which is what a large proportion of editors here want them to do) - whether one or more specific processes are listed I don't know. They certainly wouldn't instruct arbcom to take a case (I'm not even sure they could). A secure alt is not impossible here, but only one and it should be disclosed to the committee (if it had been then arbs would not be describing it as a throw-away account). Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers I disagree - it is not reasonable to expect the WMF to educate every person who contacts them on the rules of individual projects. Especially if they do not disclose any usernames in their email. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I wasn;'t going to comment, but I assumed this would be reverted with cause (where's Bbb23 when you need him) as a joke. Or something. I mean: what's this Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation? Really?! I mean, maybe, but really?! Do the WMF usually instruct local arbcoms to hear cases? Or more correctly, advise random editors to report it to local committees? And if they did, wouldn't they contact the committee if only to assure them that, yes, they did?

@Barkeep49 and Thryduulf: To be fair, re. the account being either a burner or a sock, I think this is one of those few times where it might be excused. You see, I can't help but think that if I were a member of the Iranian Wikipedia, and was effectively grassing up Iranian government officials, I would probably not use my home account either. See: WP:SECURESOCK. And this. ——Serial Number 54129 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thryduulf. Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers, especially if they are interested in maintaining good post-FRAMGATE relations with said wiki. Which they may or may not be, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: To clarify, no-one has suggested that this is an account from another language Wikipedia. ——Serial Number 54129 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: That is precisely my point (ignoring your rather childish dig). The whole point is that this could be someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, but, for reasons of security or self-interest, chooses to set up an account to make a highly sensitive report so as not to link themselves on a home wiki. That is very much in keeping with the spirit of WP:SECURESOCK. Since I have to repeat myself: they may be reporting the activities of agents of a government known to be active on that home wiki. You think that's frivolous. But then you also appear to believe that looking at reliable sources is a waste of time prior to making a judgment. You also seem to have reached the conclusion that I agree with you on something. I should clarify, that has so rarely been the case in the past that is unlikely to be so now.

@Arbs, ignoring McClenon's unhelpful remark for a moment, I should make it clear that I don't personally have an opinion; I do not know whether this is the case or not. But this is one of those rare times (although increasingly less so, perhaps...) when Wikipedia intersects with real life, with potential concomitant RL consequences. I mean... Iran ——Serial Number 54129 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration has always been a last resort for the resolution of disputes that cannot be settled in any other way. The filing of Requests for Arbitration by what appear to be new accounts established for the purpose of filing requests for arbitration does not appear to illustrate that all previous methods of dispute resolution, or any methods of dispute resolution, have been exhausted. (The global edit history shows that the filer is a new account, not an account from another language Wikipedia.) The list of previous steps in dispute resolution says that the filing party (the new account) contacted the WMF, which is a different last resort for the resolution of disputes. There is no evidence of discussion at any English Wikipedia forum. The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source, The Times (of London), apparently stating that there is being systematic removal of reports of human rights violations by the Iranian government. I have not read the details of the report because it is paywalled. There has not been an attempt to discuss the report. If there had been a serious attempt to discuss the report, an inquiry similar to the May 2023 case on distortion of coverage of the Jews in Poland in World War Two might be in order. There has not been such an attempt, and such a case is not in order. This filing is frivolous.

ArbCom should decline this case request, and remind the filer that premature filings are considered vexatious, but should be ready to consider an inquiry into distortion of Wikipedia coverage if there has been real inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 - No, on reading your aside comment three times, but you did write: Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here., thus raising the possibility that we were dealing with such a user, so I checked the global history. So we agree that is a throwaway account used for a frivolous filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, this is effectively a CT and non ECR editors should not be able to pursue remedies here. if this is a real problem, and the indications thus far is that is at least exaggerated, then surely there are some ECR editors willing to make the case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the time to examine the specifics, but as an admin who used to do a fair bit of GS enforcement in this area, I am of the opinion that AE has been an under-utilized resource, and I recommend ARBCOM decline to look into this when none of these supposedly problematic edits were reported to AE. I don't think this rises to the level of needing arbitration at this moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

moved from Serial Number 54129's section. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)@Serial Number 54129: what do you mean by "home wiki"? Irtapil (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I think this is where my statement belongs if I have no previous involvement? Irtapil (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• This case request seems to be from a throwaway account, which I'm not in favor of accepting a request from, exceeds the 500/1000 word maximum (and if we honor 500 words, exceeds the 50 diff limit), and did not notify. I had privately suggested this be removed procedurally, without prejudice to refiling once those are remedied (and since then Thryduulff has fixed the notifications) but since someone else objected to that I wanted to publicly note my concerns about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs)

  SN: If only it were as simple as pro-Iran/anti-Iran. The Iranian politics case showed there are vested interests, with their own issues, on the anti-Iran front who are also manipulating Wikipedia content, against policies, for their own ends. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re:WMF: I find it unlikely that the WMF endorsed this filing per se. Rather I find it more likely that a user contacted the Foundation and the Foundation said "this is a matter for the community and for ArbCom". WMF stuff comes to ArbCom through certain (private) channels and this is obviously not that. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics in 2021, and we do have a broad ability to revisit proceedings as necessary. As far as quick perusal of the initial statement, Ali Ahwazi needs at a minimum a referral to AE considering the highlighted edits, which are recent. Mhhossein was a party to the previous case, and the highlighted edits are from 2017 and 2018. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Commons. So, in short, while we're here, do we have any cause to continue? Otherwise I'm happy to see the case request removed on procedural grounds. Maxim (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Maxim that this can be procedurally removed as premature and/or deficient for the reasons they and Barkeep49 outline. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]