Revision as of 15:39, 13 March 2024 view sourceMaxim (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators40,757 edits →Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 13 March 2024 view source Maxim (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators40,757 editsm →Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: fixNext edit → | ||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
{{anchor|1=Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | {{anchor|1=Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | ||
*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. | *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. | ||
*I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard ] in 2021, and we do have a broad ability to revisit proceedings as necessary. As far as quick perusal of the initial statement, ] needs at a minimum a referral to AE considering the highlighted edits, which are recent. ] 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 |
*I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard ] in 2021, and we do have a broad ability to revisit proceedings as necessary. As far as quick perusal of the initial statement, ] needs at a minimum a referral to AE considering the highlighted edits, which are recent. ] 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. ] (]) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:41, 13 March 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages? | 13 March 2024 | 0/0/0 |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?
Initiated by 182Line (talk) at 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- 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
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Contacted WMF
Statement by 182Line
Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation.
The Times raises many questions in How Misplaced Pages is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities (paywalled), reprinted in The Australian. Here is a concise version:
Brief Overview |
---|
There is a systematic removal of instances documenting human right crimes by Iranian officials on Misplaced Pages, accompanied by the addition of misleading information favoring the IRP (Islamic Republic Party) on the platform. From 2015 to 2022, numerous user accounts involved in such edits faced blocks due to sock-puppetry and tendentious behavior. Despite this, a new wave of more sophisticated accounts has surfaced, actively collaborating to eliminate references to human rights violations committed by IRP officials and promote a narrative aligned with the IRP across the entire platform. |
User:Ali Ahwazi |
---|
User:Ali Ahwazi consistently utilizes sources aligned with the IRP to disseminate government propaganda:
Many more additional edits mirror this pattern of promoting Iranian government projects using Iranian government press releases: etc. |
User:Mhhossein |
---|
User:Mhhossein: In the Mahsa Amini protests Misplaced Pages article, Mhhossein adds:
However, the source cited for this content (this news piece) states:
This editor is an admin at Wikimedia Commons and has leveraged his influence to eliminate images depicting protests against the Islamic Republic Party (IRP): Etc. Then adds pro-government rally photos and adds content from IRP press releases / removes any content critical of the IRP: |
User:Ghazaalch and User:Iskandar323 |
---|
User:Ghazaalch and User:Iskandar323 delete huge amounts of documented human rights crimes by IRP officials:
|
In essence, this is the pattern. While these mentioned editors are not an exhaustive list of those involved in the Misplaced Pages IRP censorship issue, they currently represent the primary contributors to these activities. 182Line (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ali Ahwazi
Statement by Mhhossein
Statement by Ghazaalch
Statement by Iskandar323
Statement by MarioGom
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages IRP censorship issue
? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Usedtobecool
I remember seeing this report before but there is nothing listed on prior dispute resolution. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
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)
Statement by {Non-party}
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.
Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Promoting Iranian government POV in Misplaced Pages?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
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.
- I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard Misplaced Pages: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)