Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

---

For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. All that work and we managed to not vacate the original 1RR remedy. Facepalm Thank you to L235 for noticing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Worm^TT(talk) 16:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Would have been happy editing the case by show of hands, rather than a fresh motion: AGK ■ 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

Community discussion

For what it's worth AGK, if remedy 1 had said the existing remedies rather than the following existing remedies (emphasis added), I think that'd have been reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Nableezy at 06:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification of El C

I'd like some clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR. My reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions is that the only thing that requires awareness are sanctions enacted under 5A (discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator), and that the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require formal awareness of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and that users may be blocked for violating that sanction without any formal alert (obviously a request to self-revert being offered). Is that correct, or is formal notification of the discretionary sanctions required prior to any violation of the 1RR required?

In the case of articles with an ARBPIA editnotice, that notice whacks you in the face as soon as you hit the "edit" button. So I wouldn't oppose a ruling that the existence of the notice implies awareness of the sanctions. Zero^talk 07:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ping Callanecc on this as he’s been helpful explaining this before, but traditionally the understanding was that the General Prohibition was not DS, but a direct sanction from ArbCom. As such, it did not require formal DS awareness. From a practicality perspective, yeah, this is helpful to not be DS. No one isn’t warned first, and most people in these areas know the rules and the formal notification doesn’t accomplish much. For 500/30 in particular, requiring the same requirements of DS could actively work against the sanction. We do have editors who intentionally search for pages not under ECP so they can edit them because they’re that passionate about the issue. Enforcing 500/30 with the page level requirements for DS would effectively make it protection-only, which would cause issues. Blocks for 500/30 aren’t that common, but we do need them as a tool, and the DS awareness criteria there would work against the intent of the sanction: to prevent new editors from causing disruption in this area, which is very difficult to define and preemptively protect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feels strange commenting here! Exactly as Tony said, sanctions that ArbCom imposes directly (as in not by an admin under DS) operate with a separate system of rules. Unless the ArbCom decision requires that a warning be given before a sanction is imposed then a warning is ArbCom-mandated. However, a best practice approach would require that before being sanctions an editor knows what they're doing is wrong. If they're attempting to, for example, game the system as Tony suggests then they definitely know what they're doing is wrong and can be sanctioned without a formal warning having been given. Just regarding Zero0000's point above, it's important to consider that people editing using the mobile interface won't be shown the edit notice so that needs to be considered if using only that to determine whether the editor knows about the sanctions and so should be sanctioned or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note that I read the first three arbcom member comments here and I am... very positively surprised. In my professional view as a sociologist who studied, among other things, ArbCom, English Wikipedia is way too into punitative blocks, with prevention being sidelined. To hear three members of ArbCom say otherwise, and do it very clearly, is very refreshing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• Neither the 500/30 restriction nor the 1RR restriction require a formal alert in order to be enforced. However, in my experience most editors who violate 1RR are warned and asked to revert before they receive a block, and that approach should continue to be encouraged. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and this policy extends even to arbitration enforcement blocks. – bradv🍁 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What Bradv says. A notice/warning is not required, but we don't have be jerks about it. Having the authorization and ability to block without warning doesn't mean that blocking without warning is necessarily a good idea. Katie^talk 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly agree with both of the above. As I've written before, we have become far too obsessed with procedural requirements and formalities. The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the others, and I think we ned to amend arb com policy to make it more explicit. The primary purpose of arbcom is to settle disputes, not punish editors. Sometimes a person is so disruptive that a dispute can only be dealt with by removing them from the field, but do do this by discretionary sanctions is usually a very poor idea, because it is much too sticky. For arb com to sanction, a majority vote of a committee to do it; for an ordinary block, another admin can unblock, and if challenged it goes to AN and the the block needs to be reviewed by consensus ; but for DS a single admin can do it, and it is almost impossible to revert--the ds process is biased towards keeping the block. In other words, a single editor can do what arb com itself considers beyond its acceptable practice.

The absolute minimum is to greatly simply the rules for notice, which have been getting progressively complicated beyond what anyone can decipher.

But the basic reform is that the DS should be removed unless there is an affirmative consensus of uninvolved admins to retain it. (This is the opposite of present policy at WP:AC/DS section 9.2-- an appeal should succeed unless there is a clear consensus of uninvolved admins to sustain it). A further improvement could be made by limiting the time length of such sanction against individuals to 1 week at the very most, unless affirmatively endorsed by the community. A second improvement would be is restricting the types of individual DS to bans, topicbans, interaction bans, or page bans, with no special or usual requirements beyond the standard. A third would be limiting the number of times a single admin can do DS action agains an individual. (Similar restrictions might well apply to community blocks and bans, but arb com probably cannot legislate that on its own, except by accepting a willingness to review all bans and blocks, which is permitted by policy, but limited by our current practice, and is probably beyond our capability ). As is obvious here, the necessary changes will be complicated.

There is fortunately an easier way: all DS should be turned into ordinary restrictions, and DS never again enacted as a remedy. This is fuly within the power of arb com; it is our own internally invented procedure. They were originally done because there were unblockable editors--situations where some editors could not be blocked because their admin friends would immediately unblock; this is no longer a problem, as few such irresponsible admins remain. At present, the cure is worse than the disease, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As one of the drafters of ARBPIA4, if I recall correctly our intention was that the template and edit notice was enough warning for the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions. Of course admins should us their judgement and not block people for good-faith mistakes, but at the same time, ARBPIA is probably the project's most contentious and abuse-prone topic area so a quick block to stop edit warring followed by an explanation might also be appropriate. With the "General Sanctions" we wanted something relatively simple and flexible and the last thing we want to do is recreate the byzantine nightmare that is the DS notification regime (per DGG). – Joe (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Zero0000 at 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

In accordance with the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages of ARBPIA articles under certain conditions. However, "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.". My question is: Is a formal move proposal, as made using the {{requested move}} template, an example of "other internal project discussions"?

My opinion is that a move proposal is very similar to an RfC and so should be treated the same.

Thanks for your time. Zero^talk 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Bradv: I think your interpretation of "content" is narrower than intended. The very fact that the rules for talk space editing, AfDs, etc, are called "exceptions" proves that "content" is intended to include them. I believe that "content" just means "all content" in the ordinary English sense and it isn't a specific reference to article space. Zero^talk 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is nothing to stop non-ECs from discussing the topic of an on-going RfC on the talk page; they are only prohibited from taking part in the RfC itself. I believe this is important because of the number of new accounts or IPs that come out of nowhere just to "vote" in RfCs. I expect that a large fraction are socks, people editing while logged out, or people responding to off-wiki canvassing. Zero^talk 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question came up here, I thought RM is not allowed and at first @El C: thought it was OK and then decided it wasn't. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not allowed (in practice, it is similar to an RFC).Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see RMs as being very similar to RfCs in nature, so my feeling is that if RfCs are disallowed, RMs should be as well. The question of how to title an article is, after all, an "internal project discussion". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this clarification request since the beginning, and it seems like bradv pointed out interesting information that the 500/30 restriction applies to editing content only. So as worded, non-500/30 users may participate in "other internal project discussions".

Now let's look at WP:ARBPIA3, finding of fact No. 3

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was from ~4.5 years ago, but when you consider this to be a long-term problem, it's likely that the problem persist.

So with this underlying fact and intention/principle, I think that the 500/30 restriction does apply to RM as well as other internal project or vote-like discussions in any ArbCom/community areas of conflict. Sockpuppetry is small, but when discovered, is huge. 01:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a general legal principle that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. This is to provide legal certainty to people who might be affected. The topic in question is an exception to an exception, and the same principles apply.

I find the wording "such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." unclear. What are its boundaries? I suggest that "such as" be replaced by "including but not limited to".

In the case at hand, I consider that a WP:RM is of the same nature as the things already listed, and should be explicitly mentioned. Narky Blert (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• My understanding of that clause is that "other internal discussions" refers to discussions that take place in locations other than the talk page of an article. Requested move discussions, as with other talk page discussions, can be managed by the methods listed in paragraph b, but only when disruption occurs. – bradv🍁 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GorillaWarfare, my understanding is that non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages and other discussions, "provided they are not disruptive". They are only prohibited from editing the articles themselves. So they can contribute to RMs and RfCs, but if they are disruptive they can be banned from the talk page, but not from other internal discussions. – bradv🍁 16:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose there's another interpretation of the General Sanctions that says that non-edit-confirmed editors are prohibited from participating in "other internal discussions". Perhaps someone can clarify the intent of the word "exception" in paragraph B-1, as I might be confused. – bradv🍁 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Follow up, having read this more carefully:

  ARBPIA General Sanctions, as currently worded, only applies the 500/30 prohibition to "editing content". There is an exception (extension?) to apply that rule to talk pages in the case of disruption, but that clause does not apply to "internal project discussions".

  As worded, this restriction does not prohibit new editors from participating in RMs, RfC, AfDs, or any other internal discussions, as they are not "editing content". If that was not the intent of the motion, it should be reworded. – bradv🍁 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little split on this one, given that they are very similar to RfCs. As to Bradv's point about discussions happening away from the talk page, RfCs fairly often happen on the articles' talk pages and my understanding is that non-30/500 users are not allowed to participate then either (though please correct me if I'm wrong—my particular editing interests do not take me into the area of Palestine-Israel articles very often). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I agree with Bradv's interpretation of "editing content"—I don't think "content" is meant to refer to "article content", but rather is just a vague term to refer to any editing. I agree with my other colleagues that RMs would seem to be prohibited, as are RfCs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the prohibition applies here, they're similar both to RfCCs, and AfDs; a title move in this area can be very consequential, and tend to be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
• In the interests of a conservative reading to avoid disruption and the problems with the topic area, I'd agree that the prohibition would apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I see where bradv is coming from and I agree that interpreting that exception it seems to be limited to discussions that are about more than just a single page even with the "RfCs" wedged in there. Moves can be controversial, yes, but so can changes in content. It makes no sense to say "You are allowed to argue for the change of everything but the name is off limits". Consequently, I would argue that the "RfCs" reverse-exception currently does not cover RfCs that are limited to the page in question and are held on the talk page because those RfCs do not fit the "internal discussions" definition (unlike AFDs, WikiProjects etc.). To take another example: WP:DAILYMAILRFC was an "internal discussion" because it was about whether to qualify a newspaper as a reliable source. The RfC held at Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits was not an "internal discussion" because it was only about what to include in this specific article. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To me a Requested Move is short hand for Request for Comment on a Move. Seems fairly obvious that the rules should be the same Worm^TT(talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how an RM discussion isn't an "internal project discussion." If that's the only question here that would be my answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold prohibition/ restrictions in this case. Seems just as contentious as warring over content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by El C at 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBPIA4, specifically pertaining to: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4_(June_2020)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification to Shrike
• diff of notification to Wikieditor19920

Following up on the query from Shrike (see conversation at: User talk:Shrike), I thought perhaps it would be prudent for the Committee to clarify whether logged warnings count as "sanctions being levied." I suspect what the answer to this is, but having it on the record is probably a good thing. As well, any elucidation Committee members can maybe provide on AWARE and topic area regulars, even if only in passing, would be welcome (sorry for the two-questions-in-one!). El_C 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an add-on, I'd like to note that I realize that AWARE says, in part, Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions, but, even if we were to take that excerpt out of whatever context, the distinction between logged and un-logged warnings isn't specified, anywhere that I've seen (possibly, I just missed it?). El_C 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More pointedly about topic area regulars and the 12-month alert updates: say a topic area regular gets sanctioned (sanction sanction), but the sanctioning admin fails to notice that the alert update has lapsed by something like a month (or even two) — is the expectation then for the sanctions to therefore be rescinded? El_C 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some of the things Kevin had said below align with what I thought and some less so, so now I don't really feel too bad for wasting the Committee's time with this. Regardless, there seems to be grey areas that could be tweaked so as to be better expressly defined. Whether this or that gets adjusted via Motion immediately, or is to be left for wider DS reform, that I obviously leave to the Committee's discretion and can offer no serious advise on. It's mostly all the same to me though, anyway. (Sorry, will try to tone down the usual indentyness — let's see if I can live up to that promise!) El_C 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, right, that seems intuitive, as a general principle. But, in this case, the DS alert update was short by 10 days — also tying that to what Newyorkbrad says (i.e. "self-parody"). El_C 05:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, no doubt — I'm often seen as WP:BURO-ing it up when it comes to being a stickler about the procedures of DS rules (though admittedly, with some lapses, here and there). I'll just note that, in this case, I did do the calculation in my head and was, like, it's about right, not gonna bother them with another DS alert quite yet — but I suppose I'll consult a calendar next time (because math = hard!). Anyway, definitely, sounds good. Looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with by way of DS reform (long overdue). El_C 15:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to thank to El_C for bringing this up. In my opinion the logged warning is set of tools given by administrators as part of discretionary sanctions. So a user can receive one only if he aware there are sanctions in the area.
• If we say that experienced editors may receive such warning/sanction without meeting WP:AWARE requirement so what the point of "In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or"? --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @L235: I think it was not the question if the logged warning counts as awareness. As far as I understand the question can a logged warning be given without meeting WP:AWARE criteria? Shrike (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really au fait with the nitty gritty but I don't think anyone needs to see that notice more than once or even at all, especially when you have those in-your-face notices at the articles themselves. Regulars know the score and newcomers are given an easier treatment.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have IAR for a good reason and overturning a logged warning because someone was out of awareness by 10 days seems to be a good example of where the rules are completely disconnected from reality --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• Let me first say this: we know the awareness procedures are broken. They exist to avoid wikilawyering, but now there's almost a body of awareness law. My perspective is that a logged warning should count as awareness (many more things should count as awareness), but they perhaps don't currently. This is because under the procedures, warnings are not considered sanctions. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Dismissing an enforcement request says: When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. Warnings are therefore imposed when "the imposition of a sanction" is found to be "inappropriate" (or when "no actual violation occurred"). This suggests that warnings are not sanctions, and so currently do not count under the second point of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Awareness. I think it'd be reasonable to amend it to allow warnings to count as sanctions, but I'd prefer to do a broader DS reform first. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I'd be pretty uncomfortable logging a warning at AE against a user who could not be sanctioned at AE, and I would discourage the practice of doing so. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me as a vote for no: it is inappropriate to log at the arbitration enforcement log a warning against a user for edits that they made when they were not technically aware of discretionary sanctions. Nothing precludes an unlogged warning, of course, but nothing should go in the AELOG for an unaware user. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: I hear what you're saying and I agree with it insofar as it's an argument to change the way awareness works (which I want to do too). But it's not a good interpretation of awareness as it exists now. Arbitration enforcement and particularly DS constitutes a delegation of extraordinary powers by this committee to administrators, and IAR does not generally apply (or, if it does, it applies to mitigate the actions that might be taken – ambiguity in our delegation of powers should be resolved in favor of a narrower delegation of powers). It definitely doesn't allow "just 10 days off", or "just a warning", or even "it was just 10 days off and it was just a warning" as a justification to take action outside of the procedure's scope, as ridiculous as the outcome might be. The good news is that a logged warning is functionally identical to an unlogged warning. But absolutely, please save your comments here and bring them up in the DS reform consultations – it will certainly be useful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty reluctant to weigh in on an AWARENESS issue given that will be a major focus of DS reform. Quite simply AWARENESS is broken. I know I keep talking about it but I do think it will happen. I should note that quite truthfully I have no intent of leading this particular effort. However, I know some of my colleagues, including the one who posted here, are quite motivated by this topic and so I expect something will happen this year (and hopefully start to happen, if only internally at first, soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DS reform is coming up soon on our docket. Fixing how awareness works will be a major part of it. Awareness was originally meant as a check and balance, so that unsuspecting editors didn't suddenly find themselves blocked under byzantine rules they didn't know. That was a noble goal, and we still need some kind of way to let new users know about the rules. But now awareness is used as a sort of cudgel, a get of jail free card, an excuse to wikilawyer.

This particular issue? Well, again, this will probably get reformed. But at the moment, I am of a mind that a warning is not a sanction. What does a warning really do? Not much. It has no actual effect on your editing. Its meant only as a "knock it off kid or you'll go see the principal". Now, I don't think we should just start handing out warnings in place of awareness. But for egregious cases, I think it can make sense to skip the awareness, especially if they're already aware of other DS or clearly know about the functioning of ArbCom. I think the rules here should be flexible, as the harder our rules, the stronger the Wikilawyers, and the bigger the bureacracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• About twelve years ago, I made an innocent-seeming comment that we shouldn't sanction editors for violating newly imposed discretionary-sanctions rules if they didn't know that the rules existed. As Kevin observes, this common-sense suggestion has developed into a "body of awareness law" that verges on self-parody, and I oppose adding any further complexity to it. The basic precept remains what it has always been, which is that if an editor might not be aware of the rule they violated, give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the rule, and see if there's another violation before moving ahead with a sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Benevolent human at 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Benevolent human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2]

Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article: [3]

Response to Nishidani: this came up in the context of discussing whether to add a new sentence to the lead, not in the context of the existing sections (which might not have the proper heading in any case).

Response to Muboshgu: Yes, Omar sometimes says things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too at other times and in other statements. But not everything related to Israel is about its conflicts with its neighbors.

Response to Selfstudier: this is the conversation where we decided to take it here User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Invalid_RfC_closure?. We've been disputing this issue for weeks (for example, several of the closed RfCs on Talk:Ilhan Omar.

Response to The Four Deuces: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I was sad to see how misleading your statement was. The reinsertion after the failed RfC for AOC took into account the points made in the RfC and incorporated it (see here). I subsequently immediately let the issue drop and took a break after the temperature of the conversation got too high. I've consistently followed all Wikipedia policies and ARBCOM rulings. There's this recurrent narrative that keeps being brought up that because I opened three RfCs, I'm ignoring previous RfCs. The reality the first two RfCs were not allowed to come to conclusion because of disputes over the scope of ARBPIA. After the first two RfCs were disrupted, I waited until I was extended confirmed before reopening the present one to circumvent the issue, but now other editors who are trying to participate are being harassed that they can't because of ARBPIA. Which is what brought us here today. (Also seems manipulative to encourage me to open this ARBCOM request on your talk page, and then once I do so ask for sanctions be put against me there, but oh well.)

Response to Nableezy: Here's a counterexample: User_talk:Polymath03. I did continue Recent Change Patrol activities after I reached 500 edits.

Response to NightHeron: [4]

Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Above_RfC_and_ARBPIA. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: [5] Benevolent human (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite: Although I've had a minority opinion, that itself isn't a violation of policy. I believe that I've followed the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and ARBCOM rulings to the best of my ability and have respected consensus when it has been established through proper procedures. If a consensus can be binding before a formal procedure like an RfC is complete, then I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible. My understanding of how things worked was that editors who happened to be at a page discussed amongst themselves, and if they couldn't come to a compromise, they then invoked a process like this to get the wider community to weigh in.

Beyond my Ken: My understanding was that only _one_ RfC failed. The first two RfCs were cancelled for alleged procedural reasons before they were allowed to start. I'll admit that because the third RfC has now failed, this entire question might now be moot. Given that the RfC has now failed, this probably shouldn't be brought up for another RfC for at least a year. In my view, the consensus was not established until this recent RfC was closed.

Response to JayBeeEll: I did follow up on our conversation by asking on ANI, but brought it here when nobody there responded.

Even narrowly construed, I believe ARBPIA4 applies. It's clear from Bh's comments that they want the lead to summarize at least two 2019 Omar controversies. In the first, Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, the context was possible sanction of Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their support of the BDS movement. The second, in which Omar was accused of using the dual-loyalty anti-semitic canard, began as a talk by Omar and Tlaib. Omar's comments were about the I-P conflict. Bh is right that it's possible to support or criticize Israel for things that have nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine, but all of the incidents motivating this RfC are inextricably tied to the conflict ARBPIA4 covers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it is not clear, this concerns a large section with three subdivisions at Ilhan Omar. As the main section title itself declares, these paragraphs all deal with the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent human references the dual loyalty canard, which is directly referencing Israel. The Israel-Palestine issue is to be "broadly construed", so arguing that dual loyalty references American Jews and not Israel is an absurd argument to make. With Omar's loud support of BDS, there is no separating out the I-P issue from Omar on issues that pertain more directly to American Jews. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at that talk page that, at a minimum, "broadly construed" covers the case and it may not even need that particular caveat for efficacy.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This came here too quickly, more discussion should have taken place at the talk page and I think consensus would have come about fairly quickly in the normal course.Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humph, seems more going on here than I was aware of, the initial filing now does not appear as a standalone attempt to work something out but instead a continuation of something prior.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead [20:21, 1 June 2021][6], Talk:Ilhan Omar#New information [02:25, 12 June 2021][7] and Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC [21:22, 12 June 2021].[8] At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.

Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#AOC's disputes with Jewish groups [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 8#AOC and Israel. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Yet again [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.

This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021].[9] (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)

TFD (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how this is remotely ripe for Arbcom, even as a clarification request. If any action is considered here, it should be a topic ban for Benevolent human, and extended confirmed should be revoked for gaming by welcoming many editors who made a handful of edits, but neither of those require arbcom intervention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of this that could conceivably use ArbCom weighing in on is what are the dispute resolution routes for this? Would this be like some other arbitration enforcement where a single admin can make a call but a consensus of admins would be needed to overrule it? I do find the opening editor's zealousness on this topic to be somewhere between mildly disruptive to blatantly tendentious, and the gaming of EC status is also something that ArbCom ruling about would be helpful as prior editors who I thought were gaming the system by repeatedly making tiny edits at such a rapid clip to get past the barrier and then shortly after reverting to normal editing (eg adding whitspace between an infobox and the lead and then removing whitespace between the infobox and the lead) or welcoming editors at a rate of about 4 per minute, despite never having welcomed an editor before needing to reach EC status to start another RFC within the topic area. Those things I think could use ArbCom speaking about. Whether or not this obviously related subject is related is not one of the things that really need your attention though. nableezy - 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this article from an admin point of view, I would be looking at the two editors who have persistently tried to insert negative content into this BLP, those two being User:Benevolent human and User:Toa_Nidhiki05. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) This is probably a separate issue, so striking. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request is beyond ludicrous. Three RfCs haven't gone BH's way, so they come here to try and game the system and do an end-run around obvious community consensus. There should be no pussyfooting around this, BH needs to be topic banned from Omar and AOC, perhaps the entire subject of antisemitism. They are clearly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I [procedurally, but also with a rationale based on strength of arguments and the fact it was snowing...] closed the first RfC (having no prior involvement on that page, and nothing significant since) after having determined that Omar's comments and position about Israel and its actions (in the context of the Arab-Israel conflict) are obviously, "broadly construed", "related to the Arab-Israeli" conflict. BH challenged this and I explained on their talk page. I don't think there's too much grounds for clarification, except maybe re-affirming that "broadly construed" means "when in doubt, yes". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the majority of editors above that this clearly falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and with a number of editors who don't even think the qualifier "broadly construed" is necessary to see that this is the case. I told Benevolent human as much back on June 1. I am disappointed to see that they've continued pushing the issue, as well as trying to game the 500-edit limitation. --JBL (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments [here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• I will point to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Disputes_about_scope_of_conflict_area and ask if any forms of dispute resolution have been tried before coming here? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Benevolent human: In your response to Barkeep49, you write that you tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus. However, it looks to me like everyone except for you thinks this is covered by the ARBPIA area of conflict; your disagreement alone isn't enough to say the community couldn't come to a consensus. That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. I would decline this clarification request without action. @Nableezy: The way it works is that if an admin actually takes an arbitration enforcement action on the basis that the dispute is covered by ARBPIA, then that action is presumed to be correct unless it is reversed on appeal, per note 4 of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Modifications by administrators. However, there may not have been an explicit AE action here. KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, ARBPIA applies. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that no one besides Benevolent human seems to think it falls outside ARBPIA, but hoped that we might say something different. I chastise BH for running to the other parent. With regards to a topic ban, AE or AN can handle things. I strongly discourage folks from running to here every time they are unsure if a page is in an area or not. ArbCom specifically clarified ARBPIA's scope just to avoid this. Requesting at ARCA for a single page is a massive waste of editor time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

• Amend the section, replacing RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. with RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.

In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.

I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)

@Barkeep49: The editors would still have to read through the ARCA just to pick out the addition of two words. Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all; in that ARCA it probably would've been better to have formally passed a motion to amend with the changes, similar to what is proposed here. That way the result is preserved for easy access, and the templates can also be updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the ARCA doesn't offer guidance. I'm saying it's an inconvenience to expect editors to read it. For convenience sake, for a change like that, it's IMO better to just amend the remedy text. That way the information is in one place and available on the templates too. Plus it's shorter: the full ARCA is ~1,400 words long; the actual change is 2, and the entire remedy is 300. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, re The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: TBH I thought this would be an uncontroversial change of adding two words to the actual text and updating the templates to match, and that this would hopefully help with the issues. It's a simple question IMO: is it exempt or isn't it? If it is then I don't really understand how ArbCom could simultaneously agree that RMs are part of the exemptions, but be concerned about actually adding this into the list that already exists. And if the current ArbCom says isn't then that clarification would probably be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area (Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote".Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the opposers then please make a motion to allow AFD explicitly (though I still don' see any logic in allowing RFC but not AFD) Shrike (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.

On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.

To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zero^talk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on archival talk page). 182.1.13.41 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy. needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the {{refn}} and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient.     ←   ZScarpia   11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<@Bradv:> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by @AGK: being adopted.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not opposed to what's being proposed by why not create a wiki-shortcut to make it easier to link to editors when needing to explain? More broadly I think this should be part of an effort to better memorialize ARCAs on case pages which I know is something that has had some arb/clerk discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PR: I disagree with the idea that, short of a formal motion, ArbCom cannot offer guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we aren't required to offer guidance via motion, but I also believe it can be prudent to choose a motion over simple statements at ARCA, especially when an issue is likely to recur and may be confusing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the advantages of changing the motion as opposed to just linking people to the footnote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: I'm glad that footnote exists. I completely forgot about it, which says something about how hard it is to find because I wrote that footnote when I was a clerk. Anyway, I still prefer the explicit clarification in the motion but am happy to decline the amendment request. See #Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interests of not having this sit for months, are people generally inclined to want to pass a motion, in which case it would make sense to put effort towards finding one that has support, or are people inclined to want to close this request in some other way (my preference)? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced it would actually have the desired affect, but I don't really see a downside either, so my feeling at this time is to support this change. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Beeblebrox. I share his skepticism—might it make sense to have a tweaked notice specifically for RMs and similar discussions? I can quite easily imagine a newer editor skimming the notice and assuming it only applies in article space. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not seen anything so far to change my mind from the last discussion. Why should non-EC editors be allowed to discuss everything but the title of the article? That makes no sense. I can agree with clearly internal discussions as currently worded but move discussions are clearly content discussions and should imho be governed by the same rules as any other editing of the article. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2019 amendment explicitly has an exception that allows non-EC editors to "use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". I just think that comments and edit requests related to articles includes the title of the article because the exception does not talk about "the body of the article" or anything like that. So it's not a question of re-litigating but of interpreting that amendment. My interpretation is that unless this has explicitly been excluded (which it hasn't), article names are part of the exception that non-EC editors have. The request here is to add requested move discussions to the remedy, which would imho constitute a change and not just a clarification. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, why should non-EC editors be able to comment in RMs but not RfCs? Do we have any idea whether the arbs at the time considered RMs to be part of the "etc."? --BDD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still leaning towards opposition, but I do have a question: why are we even debating this? The motion below reads as more of a clarification (which seems unnecessary and potentially convoluted) instead of any sort of "overturning" or "rewriting" of the existing language, but if the last time this was looked at RMs were considered "internal processes" and thus included in the exceptions (to the exceptions) we're just wasting our time.Primefac (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 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

Support

1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to oppose#1: The permission to edit talk pages is an exception to a general rule prohibiting editing anything related to PIA (content or non-content). That's why it's given as one of the "sole exceptions". As currently written, if you really read "content" as "mainspace content", then non-EC editors already have permission to edit talk pages, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc., even without the exception, because they're only prohibited from editing mainspace content. That's clearly not the intent, and that's why the first bullet point is a useful change and in line with how we already apply this remedy. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't really understand the opposes. However we sort out the details, the remedy amounts to a general rule plus some enumerated exceptions. The only substantial change is clarifying that RMs are not among the exceptions—and arguably, that's not a substantial change, given the December 2019 ARCA. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems unlikely to come up, but clerks, please consider this my second choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. So changing it from "editing content" to "editing" is kind of misleading. As for the second change, I have already indicated that I do not think adding requested move discussions to be a clarification but a change of the nature of the remedy and I do oppose it. Closing editors might take into account that an account is not-EC when judging the outcome of a RM discussion but like all other discussions of an article's content, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing these editors to make constructive comments in such a discussion. The third change is okay but imho not necessary. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I generally agree with SoWhy, particularly on the first point. I'm not entirely convinced of the logic behind banning non-ECP users from the articles but not the talkpages, but that perhaps may be a discussion for another time. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I find myself in opposition to this motion mostly because it would set up a contradictory set of instructions. The first part of 5.b.1 is Editors who are not eligible ... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. (emphasis added). Later it is clarified that This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Shifted to abstain. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. This is a silly technicality. "Internal project discussions" already means RMs. Wikipedia generally avoids the sort of enumerated lists because as we all know, lists are inherently incomplete. Thus we write a general principle. With regards to removing "content", it just feels like semantics to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. I'm not sure where I fall on this one any more, following more discussion and points. If the only clarification is to codify specifically that RMs are internal project matters, which was clearly already defined (but hidden in a ref, etc) then it should be a trivial matter to move "and move requests" out of the ref (i.e. the second bullet point being proposed) and really not even need a motion this complex. I'm also finding issue with points 1 and 3, but I cannot figure out exactly what it is at the moment that is bugging me so I will think on it a while and abstain in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I intend to propose the above motion if there are no concerns about the wording. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my previous comments on this topic, can we also change the word "content" in paragraph B to "pages"? – bradv🍁 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bradv: How about we make these changes? "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." and "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." The term "related content" is defined in Remedy 4 as including "all namespaces with the exception of userspace", but "content" itself is not. (sigh) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Primefac: especially, but also a general comment: I think the "contradictory set of instructions" ship has sailed. RfCs are explicitly not an exception—so is an RfC on the talk page a trap for non-EC editors? I'd much prefer straightforward guidelines. Maybe that means something like declaring all talk page discussions fair game. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If we were to clarify anything, I think it should be RfCs not on a specific Talk: page are verboten, because as stated my interpretation of "other internal project discussions" means pages not in that namespace. Whether intentional or not, we shouldn't have rules so complex that on a single page #X discussion okay but #Y is not. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The original motion is too confusing, and this amendment probably doesn't do enough to fix it. The undefined terms such as "content" are problematic, as is the nested exception in paragraph B. If we can agree on what it was trying to say in the first place, perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it. – bradv🍁 00:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A somewhat rambling clarification of my vote follows. We're really nitpicking here when I think we should examine the broader "why". The reason we don't allow non-ECP in internal project areas is because we tend to get new to moderately new accounts that are here to POV push and disrupt. We've all been in discussions where a handful of users can cause a great deal of disruption. Especially something like an RM is going to be controversial, and thus on the principle, RM's, as an internal project discussion, should be ECP only. I oppose the wording as written because I think it adds needless bureaucracy. I fear that the longer ArbCom exists, the more folks will want our rulings to read like laws, with increasingly long enumerations, jargon, legalese, and ultra-precise wording. I think that is not useful for the somewhat loosey-goosey style of Wikipedia, and saps energy and independence from our hardworking AE admins. So bottom line: RM's are internal project discussions, but we shouldn't need to have to say that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 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

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Trying a different tact here: I think we lack a consensus on whether RM's are in fact part of the 500/30 restrictions, so this is in the interest of seeing where we stand solely on RM's. Baby's first motion so go ahead and tweak it if necessary :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as status quo, as established in the July 2020 ARCA. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as first choice. This provides clarity without getting into side issues like the definition of "content". Thanks, Eek! --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. As I said last time - Requested Move is shorthand for "Request for Comment about a Move". This motion explicitly clarifies that, which I thought we'd already clarified. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm That Turned makes a fair point. Maxim_(talk) 14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose per above. I still think the name of an article falls under "content", not "internal project related stuff". Regards SoWhy 16:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion

• Copyedited. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This amendment request is closed without action.

Support

1. Proposing this in the interest of not letting this ARCA sit here for months. If the status quo (the July 2020 clarification not in the text of the remedy but listed in the index footnote) is acceptable, then let's close this. If not, and the current motion isn't good, I would recommend proposing a different motion. Clerks: this isn't a formal motion and shouldn't be formally "enacted" if it hits a majority; it's just here to signal if arbs support closing this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. SoWhy 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I appreciate the lighting of a fire under us here, but we really need to either codify the December 2019 ARCA or repeal (and possibly replace) it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think the remedy needs to be rewritten. The poorly-defined terminology together with the nested exceptions make it confusing. On the substance of this ARCA, we still don't agree on whether non-extended confirmed editors can participate in requested move discussions according to the existing wording. – bradv🍁 23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unfortunately, we need to do something here. It keeps coming back. Worm^TT(talk) 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Enacted - SQL^{Query Me!} 10:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 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

Support

1. Proposed. Based on the long-running ARCA on the same topic, but proposing here to comply with the rule on changing the Committee's procedures. This motion incorporates the draft from the ARCA and also updates the two current remedies to use the standard language. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, if this motion passes, the clerks should close the present ARCA. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per all my work and reasoning at the ARCA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. BDD (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. As a thought on NYB's comment, if I am interpreting this motion correctly, this new restriction will be part of our toolkit for case remedies, much like Discretionary Sanctions, and standardises past uses in an effort to cut down on slightly-different rules being used for different cases. If anything I feel this reduces the complexity for future use, though I do feel that it should be limited to cases where it is necessary (i.e. still voted on by Remedy motion in a case). Primefac (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think this does a good job of clarifying the protection which we seem to be using (or at least considering) more often, without unnecessary bureaucracy. I take NYB's point below, but some Arbcom bureaucracy is a necessary evil of forcing a "final" step in dispute resolution. Worm^TT(talk) 16:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. This is a much-needed clarification on the previous wording. However, I take NYB's comments below seriously and hope we can, over time, reduce our dependence on complicated procedures like this. – bradv^🍁 14:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. The motion is a thoughtful product of the weeks-long ARCA discussion and I expect that we can live with it. However, seven years ago I was impressed by this article, by a highly respected author, as I wrote at the time. The project has done nothing to solve the massive instruction-creep problem that the article describes, and upon realizing that fact, I cannot bring myself to endorse yet another complicated set of rules and procedures. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by arbitrators

• Thanks TonyBallioni. Just added the sentence to the remedy 7: Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. @CaptainEek and Casliber: Hope this is fine! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall a recent discussion somewhere about whether page moves are considered edits. Would it be worth clarifying that in this motion? – bradv^🍁 03:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're referring to this discussion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it was that one – it was a hypothetical question about whether a non-EC editor was permitted to move a page within the topic area, as this restriction forbids "edits" but not "actions". It's probably a minor point, as such activity is likely going to be reverted with or without this restriction, and most pages subject to this restriction would have move-protection enabled anyway. I believe I have now answered my own question. – bradv^🍁 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:L235, minor quibble on the wording here, but for the Antisemitism in Poland case, it is likely worth keeping the bullet point that reinforces ARBEE DS are in place. While the various "sides" of that dispute have been generally speaking pro-EC protection, there's stuff that's borderline and giving admins the discretion to apply EC via DS without having to worry about wikilawyering is probably useful. They'd still have the authority anyway, but I don't see any harm in keeping the bullet point clarifying it in the actual remedy, and I could see some theoretical benefit to it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Kevin. Looks good to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Extended-confirmed protection currently technically can not be implemented at any talk pages. I was not able to find after five minutes in which namespaces it can be implemented now (I guess one just needs to try all of them), but I suspect there is only limited set of namespaces where it works (main, template, file, wikipedia?). If this is the case, it would be good to reflect in the motion for example listing these namepaces in B.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: where are you getting this information? Special:Redirect/logid/121439129 suggests otherwise. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As does this list which I should have just gone to first. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. I probably confused it with pending changes, but it is irrelevant. This makes my point void.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to make it clear: In the way D is currently formulated, any user can revert any non-ecp user from a talk page they decide is broasdly related to one of these special areas claiming they enforce ecp? is this the intention of the committee?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, in my view, the motion is pretty explicit that this is not the case. Non-ECP users "may use the 'Talk:' namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". If the non-ECP user is disruptive, "administrators may take enforcement actions" (not "any user"). If a user reverts a non-ECP user who is just editing on the talk page, that revert would not be "made solely to enforce this restriction" and therefore clause D would have no relevance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, this language is already part of the existing remedies. Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring. Remedy 5 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. This motion is just housekeeping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just remember the whole episode started from a non-administrator reverting a non-ec user claiming they are enforcing the sanction. Well. let us hope this language could work out.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are occasional, exceptional, reasons we may grant the ECP flag to editors that do not automatically qualify. If doing so it comes with a warning not to edit pages under remedy for 500/30 restrictions. It is also possible that the community may change the 500/30 threshold for ECP autogrant in the future. Keeping this in mind, beware that this could have unintended impact on past remedies. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just a non-substantive copyediting suggestion. In A2, the phrase "non-extended-confirmed" appears twice, and sounds a little bit "off". I suggest changing it to "non-extended-confirmed users" or "... editors". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, fixed the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In the interest of reducing red tape and overlapping sanctions regimes, would ArbCom consider taking over the existing WP:GS/IPAK community-imposed 500/300 rule and incorporating it as a 'standard extended confirmed restriction' into the WP:ARBIP case? I suggest this because, with standardisation occurring, it will be confusing if the IPAK restriction is left isolated with its own separate rules based on previous interpretations of how this type of sanctions regime should work. Future community-imposed extended-confirmed restrictions will most likely follow the new ArbCom regime, negating the problem, but in this case, there is already an ArbCom regime active in the topic area and standardisation is certainly desirable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @RGloucester, that looks to me like a reasonable request. I would suggest bringing it up at ARCA once this amendment passes. – bradv^🍁 17:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Do not remove a motion or any statements or comments unless you are a clerk or an Arbitrator. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. While I am waiting to hear from the specific editors named below and from the community at large about this issue, I am absolutely ready to vote on this motion as I find the evidence of what it says incontrovertibly true and think the request of the Wikimedia Foundation to be a good one. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is well-supported by the evidence that the Arbitration Committee has received. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. We do indeed have this evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. The evidence for this is unambiguous. Even if no one actually acted on the canvassing, it was desperately attempted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is plainly well-supported by the evidence the Committee received. firefly ( t · c ) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. While additional comments and evidence are welcome, these are indeed the facts as we have them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Cabayi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13. Maxim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. We indeed received this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

• Community input on these motions is highly encouraged for those with relevant evidence, whether about the below-listed users or about other users whom we might have missed. Private evidence (including emails) can be sent to the Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been mulling this over for a few days and I'm just not ready to support site bans at this point. I have little trouble believing that the allegations are true—they have been public for long enough now and I've seen no other credible explanation for how these editors made almost exactly (in some cases word for word) the edits that were requested the edits the canvasser requested. But I feel that if the canvassing was on-wiki and this was AE, we wouldn't be considering site bans for the canvassed editors. I'd happily support ARBPIA topic bans, which I feel would adequately address the problem and would be the likely outcome at AE, without prejudice to revisiting site bans if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd personally be much more open to a reduced sanction (e.g. an ARBPIA TBAN) if the users acknowledged fault convincingly, cooperated by e.g. giving more information about what discussions they were canvassed to (including any discussions not listed above), and explaining that they understand what went wrong here and what they should have instead done. But when they're disputing the basic facts, I think a sitewide block (with the opportunity for an immediate appeal, as we provide in the proposed motions) is more appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For me the fact that this isn't on wiki has to have a material impact on the sanction. And further AE wouldn't be considering a site ban, because (and this was something I fought hard to not change in the transition from DS to CT) the ability to ban/block indefinitely under our name is limited to the committee itself. So we have conduct that is harder to detect - and that for me means that the remedy needs to be stronger to act as more a deterrent - coupled with, as Kevin points out, the complete lack of remorse or accountability. I've been looking for a way to not end up supporting the site bans myself, but so far I haven't found it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I have moved Agmonsnir's comments to their own section. For these motions the "no threaded discussion" rule is in effect - please only comment in your own section. firefly ( t · c ) 08:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse. This may be too general to be actionable. If you have any specific ideas in mind, I think mentioning them to the WMF would be a good idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine we'll have specific details in asks for the WMF. We brainstormed for a few minutes today on our monthly call with T&S, but will probably want to connect with the tech folks before making a specific ask. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does ArbCom know the identities of any of the banned editor(s) involved here? Galobtter (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Galobtter. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm wondering why we are not told who's responsible? (This might help the community figure out what other edits are involved and what else needs to be done to address the problem?) Galobtter (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would it help the community @Galobtter? I think i"m in a minority on the committee on this issue, but I genuinely don't understand how that piece of information helps non-CU editors identify this disruption more than the information we've already provided. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at one of the discussions mentioned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians, L235 mentions that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim is involved. I think it'd be useful to know that any discussions that future socks of that editor participate in should be scrutinized for canvassing? I'm not necessarily in favor of transparency for the sake of it but I can see genuine utility here. Galobtter (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that editor didn't actually edit that AfD? I mean it's possible that the editors involved are really good about keeping any onwiki activity separated from their offwiki canvassing activity, in which case maybe it is not so useful, but that isn't entirely clear to me. Galobtter (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that GeneralNotability's blocks of Atbannett and Hmbr may be related to this. Both editors supported the unblock of an editor that had been indeffed for violating an ARBPIA topic ban with similar rationales. After the discussion was closed with consensus against the unblock, Tamzin disclosed that they had sent evidence to ArbCom that Atbannett and Hmbr were canvassed to the discussion by a banned editor. Around a month later, Atbannett and Hmbr were both blocked by GeneralNotability, although the block of Atbannett was temporary, unlike the block of Hmbr. Both editors have since filed unsuccessful unblock requests. From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the blocks themselves are not clearly designated as CU or ArbCom actions, although such can certainly be inferred from the context. They were not accompanied by any announcement, and both were notified on their talk pages using {{SockBlock}}, which is for abuse of multiple accounts (despite the notes in the block log that they were blocked for meatpuppetry) and stipulates that the blocks are indefinite (despite Atbannett's block being set to expire after 30 days).

It's unclear to me whether the block of Atbannett was meant to be indefinite. This event certainly seems to be related to the events described in this motion and I'm not sure whether the omission from this motion is intentional. Apologies if I'm just kicking up a hornet's nest that could've been left alone and forgotten about, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to at least mention this incident for the sake of posterity and ask for clarification. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those blocks were not related to the canvassing in this topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356 § User:Gilabrand unblock request be included in the list? (Referring specifically to Atbannett, Hmbr, and probably Homerethegreat's !votes; I have no reason to think any other overturn !votes were in bad faith.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not part of the evidence I have seen -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC reminded me of what I said here at WP:ARBIRP. Within a few hours Marokwitz proposing an RfC, Homerethegreat, Zanahary, Oleg_Yunakov, Dovidroth and Agmonsnir all quickly voted, none bothering to address any of the sourcing or neutrality issues I had raised (I'm not saying they should have agreed with me, but they simply ignored my comment). In the case of WP:ARBIRP, it was later determined[18], that someone would send emails to users with links to RfCs and talking points and they'd vote accordingly. I'm not saying that all the above voters were canvassed, but I have a strong suspicion that at least some of them were. The behavior of Agmonsnir was suspicious (their very first edit[19] to Hamas was to jump in the middle of an edit war and revert to Homerethegreat’s version using the same false talking point others were using; then their very first edit to Talk:Hamas was their RfC vote) so I asked them about it, but they said they hadn't received any off-wiki communication[20].VR _talk 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: and @Oleg Yunakov:, have either of you ever received any kind of communication off-wiki about any wikipedia article or user in the Israeli-Palestinian area? This would include communication that you decided not to act upon.VR _talk 03:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since another editor has already mentioned them, I'll add that I have suspicions regarding Agmonsir's involvment in this as well. Examples:

• Dovidroth added content to Israeli cuisine but then selfreverted citing ARBPIA concerns. Minutes later Agmonsnir restored the added content. Agmonsnir had never edited that page before [21]

• Homerethegreat added a POV tag to an article with no explanation [22] which was then removed by another editor with edit summary "Only disputed by you." Agmonsnir then restored the tag saying "Sorry, my friend, disputed by me too." [23] When asked to explain their restoration of the POV tag (they had to be asked to do so at the talk page), their response was: "It is obvious. An article on an ongoing event that has conflicting narratives about it has serious concern on neutrality by default." [24]

• Homerethegreat removed significant content from the lead of an article. [25] I restored it and started a discussion on the talk page. Agmonsnir then reverted my restoration without discussion. [26]

• Another instance of potential tag teaming with Homerethegreat here [27], where significant content was removed with edit summary "I think it’s best to discuss changes in Talk first. Homerethegreat’s version was stable for quite some time and therefore we should start from there." Content removed included: "Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine.^[1]" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding nableezy's mention of AndresHerutJaim, who seems to have been a pro-Israel sockmaster who was banned in 2012, I'll add the following:

It seems like the whitewashing edit war on Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) involving Homerethegreat and Dovidroth, which I brought up here [28], was begun (here [29]) by Joemb1977, a now blocked user with a notice on their userpage reading "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim"

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the listed discussions, here's the other editors that leap out as having activated or reactivated their accounts in the relevant timeframe and who contributed to several of these discussions, often with no interaction with the articles prior to the day canvassed users started appearing:

• User:דוב / dov. Account gamed the 500/30 restrictions; later had extendedconfirmed permissions revoked and disappeared. Contributions to discussions on the list include [30][31][32][33].
• User:טבעת-זרם / TaBaZzz. [34][35][36][37][38][39]

Obviously some caution is necessary because there are logical reasons why someone with an interest in the topic would reappear on October 7th, but these editors are notable for appearing a week later and contributing to a bunch of discussions that were canvassed here, several of which ought to have been hard for a newly-returned user to find. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is there conclusive evidence for proxy behaviour? I motion to reconsider the strength of the evidence presented in this case and the potential that it was the result of a malicious actor. While I'm not aware of the details, the truth of the accusations is unclear, committee member User:Moneytrees comment above, "Even if no one actually acted on the canvassing, it was desperately attempted," raises red flags for me, suggesting that there is no conclusive evidence of the accused editors acting as proxies, but rather an attempt to canvass them may have occurred, which is not their own wrongdoing. I think the question is very much about whether they acted upon the canvassing, or not.

2. Question to arbitration committee members: I would like to inquire the committee members: Are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you were not misled by someone maliciously trying to get other users blocked?

3. Observation on circumstantial evidence: Regarding evidence that was posted here about editors suspposedly "appearing" in discussions, to me, it appears it is totally circumstantial. Myself and other editors, as I am sure all of you, have their ways to track discussions in their areas of interest, for example, by adding talk pages or relevant WikiProjects to their watch list. It is not at all "surprising" that people appear in discussions, if if this was considered "evidence" then most of the editors in Wikipedia should be blocked.

4. Motion for transparency about involvement of Nableezy I motion for transparency regarding the involvement of topic-banned user Nableezy in this case. How did topic-banned user Nableezy obtain the private evidence? It is highly suspicious that this user, a known opponent of the accused editors who was topic banned for battleground mentality, claims to have seen the private evidence, and engaged in personal correspondence with the committee members. If such evidence exists, I propose it be made public for equitable scrutiny and discussion, and that all private correspondence of Nableezy with committee members be made public.

5. Personal note and recommendation Finally, in a personal note, I could only guess that private emails on this platform were part of the story here, so I feel lucky that I disabled emails on Wikipedia, years ago, suspecting something like this can happen - the private messaging option being used as a weapon for clever wiki-militants incriminating opponents. I recommend that all editors consider disabling receiving email in settings, now, to prevent its misuse as a tool for unjustly blocking you. Marokwitz (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz, there is evidence showing proxy edits made and that canvassing occurred. When I said that, the key word is "actually", as in "even if there is some odd explanation for the proxy edits, the canvassing occurred", although I realize that may have been lost on some. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees, thank you for your reply. Could the nature of this evidence be revealed to the people who are accused, in private, to allow them to explain their actions and perhaps provide contrary evidence? (If this was not done yet)? Marokwitz (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sympathetic to "just because someone received an email and participated doesn't mean they were canvassed". In fact there are other editors who received and an email and who participated but who aren't named here. As for @Nableezy, their involvement with private evidence happened before any topic ban. We are discussing their further involvement in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, thank you for your reply. May I ask, when you say below "we obviously couldn't show the parties the emails we've received," does this mean that ARBCOM plans to provide no further details to the accused parties on the nature of the evidence against them? Marokwitz (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accused already know what discussions concern us so they can provide information/conext/rebuttal. As I stated in my last reply to you the problems are the (very public) onwiki actions not the emails themselves. Beyond that the committee is discussing whether more can be shared. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from a reply to Novem Linguae If I may, a technical recommendation would be that every email sent through the platform is automatically accompanied by a message on the receiver's talk page (without the email content), with no ability to disable this, thereby creating an additional level of transparency and deterrence against misuse of the email facility. Marokwitz (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from a reply to EytanMelech I recommend that you copy this to your statement concerning your block, below, as it is irrefutable evidence that you were fully transparent and complained about the canvassing in real-time. Marokwitz (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Vice regent I find it hard to understand the "suspicions" related to me. I am used to believe in good faith on Wikipedia, and now these "suspicions" look very suspicious to me. Anyway, my editing on Wiki is always legitimate. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make it clear, I do not know any of the editors mentioned here and were not emailed by them etc.... I am recently watching some pages and new areas of interest, and what I understand from this discussion is that in some of them there are edit wars that are related to toxic history between some editors. I am not a part of it. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to IOHANNVSVERVS I find it hard to understand the "suspicions" related to me. I am used to believe in good faith on Wikipedia, and now these "suspicions" look very suspicious to me. Anyway, my editing on Wiki is always legitimate. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make it clear, I do not know any of the editors mentioned here and were not emailed by them etc.... I am recently watching some pages and new areas of interest, and what I understand from this discussion is that in some of them there are edit wars that are related to toxic history between some editors. I am not a part of it. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is missing some of the more obvious examples of canvassing where only a tangential relationship to the subjects these editors normally edit saw a targeted effort to vote stack, such as at Talk:Apartheid#Requested move 12 October 2023. Following an email request to vote no, the move request (which included Fagerbakke, later blocked as a sock of AndresHerutJaim and HaNagid at the time as LUC995 and later blocked as a sock of Tombah), had several users make their first ever edit to that talk page, those being EytanMelech, Mistamystery, Pg 6475, Dovidroth, and Zanahary. None of those users have edited either the talk page or article since (Zanahary, Pg6475, Mistamystery, EytanMelech and Dovidroth edits to the talk page), and none of them were, from the contributions, participating in requested moves that were not targetted for canvassing. I also think you all should consider some sort of amnesty for people who admit their involvement, perhaps a topic ban instead of an indefinite block. nableezy - 14:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People can keep trying to make this about me, and if there is any response needed to the various things being said about me here then please let me know. I dont intend to engage in any back and forth, but if some clarification is needed by the committee then by all means tell me and Ill be happy to provide it. I also have no issue with any of the evidence that can be made public to be made public. nableezy - 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known for the record that I almost certainly did not have a "tangential relationship to the subjects" prior to the October 12 request on the Apartheid article on Wikipedia. 2 days prior, I made 6 edits to the Kfar Aza massacre page (with previously unused sourcing and over a thousand bytes of data), as well as an edit and comment on Two-State solution. Two days prior to that, I made over 2k bytes of edits to the Alexandria shooting page. My interest in these articles did not spawn from any sort of canvassing beggars from people like your stated Faggerbakke, but because of the October 7th attack, the deadliest single massacre of Jews in decades, which spawned a desire in me to improve and support coverage on.

In fact, I CONTACTED ANOTHER USER MONTHS AGO, COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO RECRUIT ME. I admitted I did agree with some of his ideas, but I did not believe it was right for him to try to make me make edits on his behalf. EytanMelech (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in on the DavidRoth topic ban appeal, only to see that it has been closed with a link to this page. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that User: Nableezy, who is currently topic-banned for engaging in battlefield conduct in opposition to DovidRoth and other editors, has (notwithstanding that topic ban) supplied private evidence indicating that DovidRoth and other editors he doesn't like have been canvassed and edited on the basis of that canvassing. In response to that evidence, which is described here as convincing beyond a shadow of a doubt, editors are going to be kicked off the project. Checkmate.

Really, Arbcom? You're going to indefinitely ban editors under these circumstances? I think Arbcom owes the community full transparecy. No possible privacy concerns justify such a "star chamber" action. Yes I know I know. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not a place for due process, yadda yadda. You don't have to tell me but why rub it in people's faces, especially in such a hot-button area such as this? The full evidence upon which you are relying should be made known (with redactions as necessary) not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of readers of Wikipedia who might want to know how Wikipedia functions and why I/P articles may or may not have a certain slant or POV. Don't just say "oh we have private evidence from a very involved party and we are acting on it. Seeya!" If you do, I think it would be a serious mistake. I used to edit to stop paid editing and COI, but I stopped some years ago because I saw that it was futile and because I was working to improve the reputation of the project and the Foundation, when both seemed largely indifferent. I am starting to get a feeling of "déjà vu." Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the targets of this case want the evidence disclosed and that Nableezy does too. That makes it unanimous. I also think that in fairness, Arbcom should allow other topic-banend editors to comment here. It would seem bizarre indeed if only one topic-banned editor is allowed to comment here, while the rest are not. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has a policy mandate, To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;. Were ArbCom not to protect the encyclopedia from concerted efforts at disruption we would not be doing the work that the community has trusted us to do because if we're not doing it, no one is even attempting to stop these concerted efforts. If you don't want us to do that work, there is the community route for amending the policy.

As to the specifics, Nableezy has mentioned that their evidence is only about 1 of the 3 editors named here (From the motion being discussed here (emphasis added) The Arbitration Committee would like to thank the editors who reported canvassing.). So Nableezy isn't able to just give permission for the evidence to be disclosed. Further, even for the evidence Nableezy reported, not all of the personal information is Nableezy's, or one of the named parties here. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't allow Arbcom to forfeit other users' private information out of your desire to see everything. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the privacy issues here, but given the high visibility of this subject area I would suggest that more is at stake than the personal curiosity of one editor. Couldn't you disclose redacted evidence? Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't disagree that you understand the privacy issues and don't give it as much weight, instead giving weight to the high visibility of the topic area. Whereas I am obligated under policy to give more weight to the privacy and confidentiality considerations. As for disclosing redacted evidence if this were one or two emails we were talking about it might be practical. We have named 15 different discussions which have been targeted and it's not like those 15 discussions were targeted in a couple of emails. Producing redacted evidence would require hours of work from likely multiple arbitrators and I'm definitely not willing to volunteer to do that, preferring to spend my time thinking about the evidence, thinking about the feedback and comments, and truthfully replying to the comments and feedback. In fact I feel some obligation to respond because I am one of the people who really advocated for us to do this in public, rather than completely in private as policy would support and past practice would tell us to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do those same privacy considerations prevent you from showing the evidence to the affected parties? Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something because it seems like we obviously couldn't show the parties the emails we've received. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's grossly unfair. especially since these are unusually tough penalties. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really displeased to have been brought into this. I think users whom no one is actually standing up and accusing of anything should be left alone. Nableezy and Vice_regent, please either accuse me of proxy voting or refrain from tagging me. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to Vice_regent) I always write only my own opinion. I hope this is the first and the last time I'll see such false acquisitions from you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov: I've moved this to your own section; only arbitrators and clerks may comment in others' sections.
Please address your comments primarily to the Arbitration Committee rather than to other users. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why all folks want to see all evidence. But there is a reason that there are only something like 50 or so CUs and far fewer arbs. These are members who have gained the trust of the community and must deal with privacy issues. Further, CU techniques, although hardly secret in the tech field, should not be broadcast. I am also uncomfortable with claims that we, the hoi polloi, must know exactly what info and by whom was provided as that brings up scary incidents IRL. WP in not a democracy. Barring an insurrection, I think we need to trust presented info as far as it goes. Of course possible contrary evidence can be presented. (Albeit as an editor in PIA I have seen nothing in the general facts that is surprising.) Side comment: A horizontal rule would be useful between the four major sections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that conspiracy theories are in vogue. But devoid of evidence, perhaps this is not the appropriate place for suggestions of a "set up". O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a fan of the direct request to the WMF as part of this. Why are volunteer developers unable to help with this? The vast majority of anti-abuse tooling was, and still is, designed, developed, and/or maintained by volunteers. I can't imagine this anti-canvassing whatever is something that just the WMF can accomplish, and if that's the case, it seems like a much larger problem. Legoktm (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: There, currently, is not a good way to talk to volunteer developers sub rosa about the specific details. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: that's a big [citation needed] from me. There are multiple places in which volunteers and WMF staff collaborate that are private, including Phabricator tickets, IRC channels, mailing lists, etc. Legoktm (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that the committee has chosen to do this publicly and applaud this move towards increased transparency.

However, I am concerned that this is quickly turning into a witch-hunt, with editors tossing out accusations with little to no evidence, accusations that in a different forum would result in a boomerang as often as not.

I think it would be beneficial for the committee to instruct editors to avoid issuing accusations unless they have some form of evidence for them, and to remind editors that posting unsupported accusations - casting aspersions - can result in sanctions. 02:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that, in one case, "at least 190 editors" received emails according to KevinL at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians, what is known and can be disclosed about the evidently somewhat flawed selection criteria AndresHerutJaim is using to target editors? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding asking "the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse", it's an obvious point, but a contributing factor is the inability to solve the tricky problem of sockpuppetry allowing disruption vectors like AndresHerutJaim to abuse the system for over a decade. So, I'm wondering whether the Wikimedia Foundation has made any progress with machine learning tools like SocksCatch? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Marokwitz's comment about the WP:PROXYING policy and the apparent lack of clarity on the appropriate response to stealth canvassing by a site banned editor suggests that the Village pump WP:PROXYING (banning policy): Clarification needed discussion from November 2021 might need revisiting at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is ArbCom willing to disclose a list of sockpuppet accounts used to canvass editors? I'm curious how many had the extended confirmed user access level. I'm wondering what would happen if accounts without the extended confirmed user access level were unable to add ECP articles to their watchlist. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely like all the editors here on Wikipedia (although I may not always agree with their views), and I would hate to see anyone blocked. I am commenting here in response to @Nableezy:s' remark about HaNagid being a sock of Tombah in order to provide additional information. I respectfully disagree with Nableezy: from HaNagid vs. Tombah's talk pages, they appear to me to be very different personalities, with HaNagid being more diplomatic. I also recently took a look at HaNagid vs Tombah's global accounts. HaNagid has a Hebrew Wiki account which he created and started editing on March 2, 2022 - May 18, 2023. He has edited things like Mariah Carey and Pokemon. Tombah has a Hebrew Wiki account which he created June 19, 2021 - Dec 2023, and the vast majority of his edits are about Jewish history, genetic study on Jews, etc. Due to the overlap in account timeline and the contrast in editing subjects on Hebrew Wikipedia, I strongly disagree that HaNagid and Tombah are the same person. I don't know why Tombah was blocked, but from his Hebrew account, I believe he would have been an asset (and has been an asset) to the Jewish articles on Wikipedia. HaNagid, unfortunately, did game to get extended-confirmed permissions on English Wikipedia, but I am not sure if that warrants a sockpuppet accusation and indefinite block. I was impressed with the edits that I did see from HaNagid: they were detail-oriented, concise, and in real-time, his edits were rapid fast. If both he and Tombah are people who I suspect are pursuing PhDs (I could be wrong), they would have been an asset to Wikipedia, and blocking them is a loss. How does this relate to the current Arbitration Request? I would respectfully ask that the administrators take each individual editor's contributions to Wikipedia into account and to look at the completeness and quality of evidence provided before deciding on an outcome as severe as an indefinite block on Wikipedia. From the HaNagid vs. Tombah sockpuppet case, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt and evidence, that those two are two different people.

Also, wanted to point out that it’s Homerethegreat not Homerthegreat, probably in reference to an artist, and the user could equally likely be male or female. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that much of the information surrounding this motion is not accessible, I've compiled some statistics. I evaluated participation in the 15 listed discussions, tabulating it in my sandbox. At a minimum, I've found strong evidence of severe WP:BATTLEGROUND violations. There are eight editors who participated in a majority of the discussions, and not one of them ever "broke ranks", always agreeing with the same editors. Of the three named editors in this motion:

• EytanMelech participated in 4/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.
• Dovidroth participated in 11/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.
• Homerethegreat participated in 14/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.

Only Arbcom has the evidence to determine whether canvassing took place, but there are undeniably concentrated efforts to impose certain points of view in violation of Wikipedia policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman said that Icewhiz could be involved. If it was him or anyone else sophisticated, this can be an intentional set up. Immediately after every RfC is opened, someone sends an email to user X saying: "Hey, why would not you make such comment "..." [a comment similar to other comments made by X in previous RfCs in the same subject area]". At least one of Icewhiz socks imitated other contributors. Now, if user X does make such comment, word to word, that means X is not only engaged in proxying, but also stupid or there is a WP:COI issue. But if he does not, and simply makes a similar comment at the RfC, this could be a set up. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are 99% sure Icewhiz is not involved in the ongoing disruption -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the part of this statement that made me go "I'm not so sure about that". The premise of the statement is that the LTA is a (to be somewhat simplistic because there are some nuances here) pro-Israel LTA (Icewhiz, AHJ, whomever) that is also trying to get editors favorably disposed to Israel sanctioned. The reverse doesn't make sense to me either - because if they don't get caught the CANASSing happens and the outcomes are potentially alteratered against that person's wishes. This is why the straightforward reading that this was a genuine attempt to alter the outcomes is the most likely. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined the statements given here and the page list provided as part of the motion, it's very clear that some kind of coordination behind the scenes. This is an aside but I'd like to point out that others that simply calling these motions a set up is not very helpful and honestly extremely inappropriate in this venue. Statements are supposed to be directed towards the committee and not others making statements. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am much more comfortable with an indefinite ban for these three editors from making edits related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I personally think an indefinite site-wide block is too punitive. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @nableezy, a topic ban should be on the Arab-Israeli conflict instead of just Palestine-Israeli conflict. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have raised the issue that Arbcom is considering sanctions for people who were canvassed, or who made proxy edits but could potentially have had those opinions on their own. Whether the "instructions" given were one-way or not, it is clear that off-wiki coordination happened and content/discussion was manipulated. WP:PROXYING does say this, but it also directs the user to WP:MEAT which explains further. This is not the first time this has been dealt with, either. Editors who believe we don't ban people for being canvassed or participating in meatpuppetry should read the case that established the precedent, WP:EEML. In particular, the Principles "Gaming the system", "Meatpuppetry", and "Presumption of Coordination". Participation in discussions after being canvassed was noted, not just coordinating by itself.

Regarding the transparency issue raised by several editors, that is a very valid point. I'm aware per Barkeep49 that Arbs are currently discussing whether more of the data can be made public without compromising privacy. I would also encourage them to review the Findings of Fact at WP:EEML, where the contents and authenticity of the private evidence were summarized and described in a way that did not compromise confidentiality. I think most editors would be satisfied with a summary like that from a transparency standpoint. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting here that I've just noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre was listed as a potential target. As the closer of that one, I did suspect that something strange was going on but had no firm evidence of it. A number of the rationales from the Merge camp were just false, like "no secondary sources", but the more alarming one being that a lot were "Per X", and in some X's !vote was "per Y". They also just didn't engage with the additional sources and analyses provided by the Keep editors. It just didn't make sense to me at all. I still don't have anything that isn't already available, but I'll note that all three of the editors mentioned here so far were "per X" with no deletion rationale (although their !votes were days apart, in fairness). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really doubt that canvassing/proxying has occurred; it's so common, it's the reason I keep my email off. But, I think Arbcom needs to shore up its (public) evidence a bit here.

First, as to the charges of participating in a discussion because of canvassing. I do not think that charge can be held against anyone in high-profile articles, because everyone is aware (and often watchlisting) these articles, so they'd participate in discussions there whether canvassed or not.

The following articles are un-canvass-able, in my opinion, because they're just too high-profile: Israel, Gaza Strip, United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, From the river to the sea, and 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Anyone editing anywhere in this topic area is going to be aware of and participating at these articles and others like them.

There is a second layer of articles that I believe are similarly un-canvassable, because anyone in the top articles (like Israel or 2023 Israel-Hamas war) is going to find this second layer of sub-articles. From the above list: Allegations of war crimes against Israel and Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Template:Genocide navbox is another page in that category -- anyone editing a page where that navbox appears will be aware of the navbox and thus of discussions about the navbox.

There are also articles that, while more obscure than the top-level ones, become "wiki-famous" because they're posted at ANI, or on the talk page of one of the top-level articles (or at WPO or Discord or IRC or some other place where there is non-specifically-targeted canvassing). That would include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial, and arguably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre (as one of many massacre articles that have become well-known).

So on this list, the only places where I'd be surprised that someone showed up, would be Talk:Ahed Tamimi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society. I hope arbcom "filters" the evidence to separate out high-profile articles on the above list from low-profile ones (regardless of whether arbs agree with my particular classifications).

Second, as to the charge of WP:PROXYING, it is impossible for an editor to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits if the editor does not know which edits were the proxying edits. However, the editors who received emails -- and the email server and digitally-verified EML files can confirm this -- know which emails they received, which edits those emails asked them to make, and which edits they actually made. So they don't need arbcom to list the edits, they need to say: "here is a list of edits I was asked to make, here is a list of edits I actually made, and here is an explanation as to why those edits were productive and why I had independent reasons for making them." I'm AGFing that arbcom properly verified that emails were sent to specific editors ... if those editors aren't voluntarily disclosing the edits they were asked to make and (if applicable) made, then I don't AGF about those editors.

I think it would be helpful, to shore up public confidence, for arbcom to publicize some stats, like how many emails were sent, how many emails were received by each of the editors, maybe how many proxy edits were made (or suspected), maybe the relevant time period (was it all after Oct 7?). I know more detail means less security and privacy, but I think there is an acceptable middle-ground. So, e.g., if it's publicly disclosed that Editor 1 received 30 mass emails between Oct 7 and Dec 31 and Arbcom has received copies of 10 of those, and Editor 1 made the requested edits 7 times... that's a different story than if you say Editor 1 has received 2 emails and we don't have copies of either one but thereafter they showed up at Talk:Israel and voted in an RFC. The latter is weak sauce, the former is strong.

Finally, I don't put any stock into "Editor 1 showed up at XX/15 discussions and voted the same way" because we could make that list for any number of regular contributors in any number of topics. There are always editors who consistently vote and consistently vote pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, or pro-Democrat or pro-Republican, etc. That's an indication of bias (which everyone has and isn't in and of itself a policy violation) but not canvassing or proxying, just interest in the topic and a common viewpoint. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the process that the ArbCom is trying to use here to be highly objectionable. Usually Arbcom motions with sanctions are used in emergency situations, to desysop an admin without opening a full case or sometimes to remove a member of the ArbCom itself. What we have here is not an emergency situation. There are lots of accusations flying around directed at various editors, and the circumstances appear to be rather complex. Don't deal with this situation by motion(s). Instead, open a full case and use a more careful and deliberative process. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 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 adopt the motion or provide additional information.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I still support this but have changed this to be a standard choice and not secondary to the topic ban, given the response ArbCom has since received from Dovidroth explaining their edits. The evidence we have now is conclusive enough that I have no doubt that this occurred, yet Dovidroth's continued insistence that they did not make edits on behalf of a banned user when the evidence very clearly shows otherwise is problematic. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. As I said about EytanMelech: the emails we have seen are quite conclusive that Dovidroth has made specific edits in specific ways at the direction of a banned user, the timing on the emails aligns very well with those edits, and the data we have also indicates that the emails we were forwarded here have not been tampered with. If they had come clean about what was going on I would have opted for the lesser sanction only, but proxying like this fundamentally undermines community trust. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per GeneralNotability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. In my opinion Dovidroth had the clearest evidence, I see this as basically a meatpuppetry case with offwiki evidence, and we've Arbcom blocked ~8 accounts for similar conduct in the last 365 days. I agree with the ban vs. Arbcom block distinction. It would make more sense for these to be our typical Arbcomblocks off of private evidence, but I also think that isn't a reason to not vote to ban-- this is still sanctionable conduct. I think it would have better to contact these users privately, vote on Arbcomblocks after their responses, and post the result at ACN. This would've been more convenient for all participants and would've provided the community with the same level of transparency. The evidence is a lot clearer than we are making it out to be and that this format has complicated things and underplayed our hand. Even though I found Dovidroths conduct the most suspicious, I wanted to get a response to some particular diffs before I voted. I did not find the response convincing, so I am unfortunately ending up here. I could possibly support an appeal with a topic ban from this area. Barkeep and Galobttr make good points. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Primefac, who put it better than I could. I am sympathetic to Maxim's reasoning below, but I think that the bar is cleared in this case. firefly ( t · c ) 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The bar to get banned by ArbCom (distinct from ArbCom blocks) has veered towards either persistent issues in multiple topic areas or egregiously poor conduct in one topic area (that somehow didn't get a community ban). I wouldn't call canvassing and making proxy edits for a banned editor "egregiously poor" such that it deserves a full site-ban; a topic ban is more proportionate. If there's a similar canvassing and proxying issue in a separate topic area, then a site ban would be appropriate, but I don't see such an event as particularly likely. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am not impressed with Dovidroth's on-wiki behaviour nor their responses to this case. However, I believe that blocks and bans are meant to prevent disruption. After reviewing the evidence, I think the disruption only occurred in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so a ban for editing any part of the site would be inappropriate. If the problem spread to other areas of the site, or if a topic ban was imposed and they continued their behaviour, I would support something more overarching. However, I do not think a full ban is appropriate at this moment. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per my comments supporting the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. First choice. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Changing to a standard support of this proposal per my comment in the ban proposal section. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Making edits in a controversial topic area without using your own independent judgement and thinking in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is absolutely disruptive. I don't feel it rises to the level of an indefinite block, never mind an Arbcom ban, on its own. A topic ban is more proportionate to the level of misconduct here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. I find myself very relcutantly here. We've now shared a number of edits with Dovidroth. In some of the situations his explanation make sense and wouldn't on their own concern me and may not even concern me even in context. However, his explanations for other edits don't make as much sense and have unexplained pieces that make it seem far less likely than the simpler explanation: he made the edits because a banned editor got him to make them. So far this makes him roughly as culpable as the other two editors, for whom I've supported topic bans. I also take seriously Maxim's comments about when a site ban is appropraite. The part I'm stuck on, is that Dovidroth has basically said the evidence against him is made-up/forged (it's not), was only able to supply 1 email of being canvassed, despite claiming to have multiple, and has otherwise attempted to forge dissension in the community this. The evidence that he canvassed is strong and the number of instances is beyond a one time (or two time or three time) occurrence. These aggravating factors against him aren't ultimately enough for me to move beyond a topic ban. That's because I'm ultimately inclined to try to be as preventative as possible rather than punative. If there was a reasonable lever for me to pull that would let me say that I find Dovidroth's conduct worse, both in canvassing and in responding to the allegations of it, worse than the other two I'd be pulling it. I certainly can't justify opposing the site ban and so will instead abstain there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Equal choice per Barkeep49's 21:46, 16 January 2024 message below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. second choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Equal choice. firefly ( t · c ) 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence shows that emails went out and then, shortly after, the exact requested edits were made. We are talking in some cases word for word copies. For all three users named, this happened enough times to consider sanctions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic ban motion proposed above originally has the scope of "Palestine-Israeli conflict" but I have changed it to "the Arab-Israeli conflict" to match the scope of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. The same is true of the topic ban motions for the other two editors. - Aoidh (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dovidroth: I would still like us name specific edits we're concerned about. But nothing in that would stop you from providing us the canvassing emails you have received. I'd encourage you to forward them to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Before voting on this and the other remedies, I want to see Dovidroth do what Barkeep has asked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For the Arbs who've indicated this is a 2nd choice, is there a reason you don't support a site-ban and topic ban? It the site ban were to pass, starting them off with a topic ban seems like an obvious first step that it could make a site unban discussion easier to not have to come to that consensus at that time. And if for some reason the topic ban isn't appropriate it's not really extra work to repeal that as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When there was a "second choice" support for the siteban, supporting both felt like weakening my siteban vote. I haven't calculated thoroughly if this made sense, but now that there are no "second choice" siteban supports left, I can definitely support both. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express my shock and concern regarding these accusations. I acknowledge that I have received multiple canvassing emails through the Wikipedia private emails system, which I ignored, and I have not acted upon them or responded in any manner.

Furthermore, in the interest of transparency and fairness, I am formally requesting that the Arbitration Committee provide me with the private evidence that has been compiled against me. This request is made in the spirit of understanding the full context of the allegations and to allow me to defend myself.

In addition to this message, I will also be reaching out to the Arbitration Committee via email to reiterate my request. The unfolding of events gives me reason to believe that this situation might be part of an orchestrated campaign to smear pro-Israel editors, a concern that deeply troubles me.

It is my hope that the Committee will consider my request with the seriousness it deserves, ensuring a fair and just process for all parties involved.

Regarding the issues raised by @Philipnelson99, @Tamzin had previously stated that my ban was only involving sock puppets, which this case was not. Furthermore, although a banned user got involved in the middle, I was simply restoring the earlier version of @Homerethegreat, who is not a banned user. For these reasons, I do not think that this was a "pretty clear violation" as Philipnelson99 suggests. Nevertheless, as soon as Tamzin told me that it was potentially an issue, I self-reverted. Dovidroth (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implore the Committee not to close the arbitration case until I have received this evidence that I requested privately and have been given a fair opportunity to defend myself. Dovidroth (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to receive any response on the nature of the accusations, about which I email Arbcom a couple days ago.

Nevertheless, since it has been implied that I should explain how I got to each of the articles/discussions, I will explain the following:

All of the RfC and AFDs are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine and other places. I check these regularly.

As for the discussions that were not RfC/AFD, I had previously edited United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Same goes for that I had previously edited Gaza Strip (among other edits). And I had edited use of human shields by Hamas just a couple days before my vote there.

I have been watching From the River to the Sea, as I was concerned about issues of bias and wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten worse.

As for Ahed Tamimi, Nableezy’s edit summary "remove garbage source and material without weight" caught my eye. The material was totally compliant with Wikipedia policies, so Nableezy, in that case, removed reliably sourced data while using combative language.

I think this covers all of the cases that I was involved with mentioned in the arbitration. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I will try to reconstruct how I got there. Dovidroth (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this doesn't speak directly to whether or not Dovidroth has engaged in canvassing, BUT I do believe it's pertinent to note that Dovidroth was sanctioned by Tamzin as part of an unblock agreement. This sanction was As a revert restriction, you may not restore any edit within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area that was made in violation of a ban or block and reverted for that reason. I and nableezy were both concerned that Dovidroth had violated this agreement. In the situation I was concerned about it was a pretty clear violation of the sanction but Dovidroth self-reverted after Tamzin explained that the revert Dovidroth had made was a possible violation. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparency and fairness, could Dovidroth publish the content of all of the recieved canvassing emails, after redacting email addresses and any other personal/private information? starship.paint (RUN) 10:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple request. See, without opining on the correctness of the advice there, WP:POSTEMAIL.
Separately, I would ask that you direct your statements to the arbitrators rather than to other users (e.g., suggest that we ask Dovidroth to send us, or the community, a full copy of the emails). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: - thank you for informing me. I struck the above and would suggest that ArbCom ask Dovidroth to send ArbCom a full copy of the emails. starship.paint (RUN) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @GeneralNotability: - you made a mistake in your vote for at #Dovidroth above, you mentioned EytanMelech instead. starship.paint (RUN) 10:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we treating Icewhiz like he who must not be named? If it looks like him, just say so.

Could somebody explain to me how the checkuser tool tells you anything about one user emailing another user? As stated, the assertion sounds like a non-sequitur. Do you mean to say that this account looks like it could be an Icewhiz sock, but the technical evidence is not conclusive so you will book it as proxying? This account and the one below are strenuously protesting their innocence. Maybe you should offer the editors to identify themselves to WMF if they want to get their bans lifted. Once they prove that they are real people distinct from Icewhiz, a warning against proxying should suffice. If they don't accept the offer then that answers your question. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is Icewhiz, it sounds like somebody similar, to wit, an long term abuser. Perhaps they are amused by stirring the pot and don't really care who gets banned. We should ban any single purpose accounts that are involved, and warn any productive accounts that were snared. I don't think it's right to instantly and permanently ban good faith contributors, regardless of how naive or stupid they might have been. If you think that accounts were abandoned and then taken over by a bad actor (e.g. via credential stuffing), please say so for transparency. The enemy knows the system. Therefore, there's no benefit to being coy. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think topic bans for the relevant editors are fine. Wikipedia is big. These editors can improve many other articles. If they want to get back into I-P some day they can file an appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Oppose. We don't ban editors for canvassing or meatpuppetry. Canvassing by itself merits a warning, exclusion of the canvassed !vote(s) from the relevant discussion(s), and, if canvassing occurs on-wiki, possibly a temporary block or topic ban imposed on the person(s) orchestrating said canvassing. Off-wiki canvassing, as long as it isn't harassment, there's nothing we can do about except slap {{notavote}} on the affected pages and discount obviously canvassed comments made by people who clearly have no policy knowledge. Again, as long as the off-wiki stuff isn't "canvassing by extortion" or some other form of harassment, we shouldn't be sanctioning editors on-wiki for things they say off-wiki.

Proxying for a banned editor is a form of meatpuppetry, which again, does not merit the most severe sanction short of WMF intervention that can be possibly issued. A person making edits at the direction of a banned user, or reinstating the reverted edits of a banned user, is taking responsibility for that content as if they had made the edit themselves. If the content of the edits is problematic, it should be dealt with accordingly, up to and including blocks if necessary, but again, we don't outright ban editors with no or minimal sanction history just for making some edits that might've been better off not made. The action of "blind proxying" (i.e. proxying for banned users without stopping to examine if the edits themselves are appropriate) should be met with a warning for a first offense, and then standard meatpuppetry procedures if it continues after a warning. Yes, I know these procedures frequently include indef blocks, but a standard indef block, while it has the same technical effect, is much less severe of a sanction than an ArbCom ban. But if the edits themselves are not problematic, and the only issue with them is that they were requested by or originally made by a banned user, there is absolutely zero reason to sanction another user simply for agreeing with the POV of a banned user, especially if an editor in good standing who wasn't canvassed had made those exact same edits and wouldn't face any sanction.

In short, I was completely shocked to see this on my watchlist. This is a serious overreach and the fact that it is even being considered is deeply concerning. Again, unless we are dealing with some form of harassment (i.e. "canvassing by extortion"), we do not ban editors merely for participating in discussions after being canvassed to them, nor do we ban editors for engaging in "routine" meatpuppetry, especially for a first offense. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chart compiled by User:Thebiguglyalien purports to show "battlefield' behavior, I believe it shows nothing of the kind, but that is beside the point. What it does show is something peculiar. User:Pincrete took "Pro-Palestinian" positions in three matters at issue in this arbitration. Yet, as he (Pincrete) points out, Pincrete was a target of the canvassing and quite correctly made public his concerns in the AfD for which he was canvassed. That of course was refelcted by others in the AfD, also correctly. I find it odd, to say the least, that a determined pro-Israel canvasser would canvass persons not in their "camp," and I think that this raises the possibility of a "set-up" as mentioned by User:My very best wishes above.[40]

I agree also with the other comments made by others that the penalty being discussed here is unduly harsh, which adds greatly to the unfairness of editors not being shown the evidence being used against them. If this was a "set up" in any way, shape or form, then I would suggest that this entire case is "fruit from a poisoned tree." Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Philipnelson99: It's not a "conspiracy theory," it's a comment on a strange anomaly in the little evidence provided publicly. I'm not suggesting that the person bringing the motion was engaged in a "set-up," if that is what happened. But I do think that Arbcom should take into consideration the number of adverse parties who wound up being canvassed. If there is one, it might have been a stupid mistake by the canvasser. But there were several, I think it is significant. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Marokwitz's comments concerning WP:PROXYING are shocking. What makes them shocking is that they are the first time the actual policy governing the conduct at issue has actually been mentioned by anybody commenting here. Including me. It never dawned on me, but it apparently never dawned on the arbitrators either, and they are the ones who are about to either ban or permanently topic ban several editors, the contents of the policy notwithstanding. Yes, the policy was discussed at one point, back in 2021, but it was never changed. At one time in this discussion an arbitrator pointed out to me how essential it is to strictly apply the privacy policy, and how that made it impossible to show the evidence to the people accused so they could defend themselves. Why not apply WP:PROXYING with equal zeal? Why ignore it? These editors should be given an opportunity to "show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits," and in order to make such a defense they need to see the evidence. Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) added sentence Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh if a topic ban is proposed I think it should be Arab-Israeli conflict, not just Palestine-Israeli conflict, following the relevant arbitration cases that had the wider conflict as their scope. nableezy - 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment applies to the proposed topic bans for all three editors.) Regarding the proposed TBANs from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict: I'm wondering whether this scope is sufficient, specifically looking at discussions like Talk:Gaza Strip#"Oppressive one-party state" (listed in "General facts" above), that is not technically about the conflict itself but was nonetheless targeted by canvassing attempts. NB: I don't often edit or administrate in this topic area, so if it is already generally understood that these discussions are covered, broadly construed, then no problem. DanCherek (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For each of these users, and any other user with a similar problem, the following process should be followed:

1. The user should get an official warning from ArbCom. Notification about this discussion should count for the listed users. If any user tried to explain in good faith why their behavior was justified, it may be appropriate - depending on the explanation - to answer it before they're considered having been warned, although eventually IDHT would apply.
2. If the user continues to violate the stated policy after the warning, a topic ban should be applied, stating explicitly in the justification that the behavior continued after warning.
3. A site ban is only appropriate if the user either shows unwillingness to follow topic ban, or gets several topic bans.

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Dovidroth should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning would be sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd the stance being taken that it's apparently ok to lie to both ArbCom and the community about offwiki proxying (not saying I know if Dovidroth lied or not, but the plain implication of the comments above by ArbCom members is that Dovidroth is not being truthful in his explanations). Off-wiki proxying undermines community trust, but even more so is lying about it. And it is not like Dovidroth didn't get a warning beforehand. He was in fact blocked 8 months ago for basically the same conduct at issue here—off-wiki proxying for a banned user. He was unblocked in a gesture of good faith trusting in his explanation of those edits. Looking back now I'd have to think he was untruthful about not being off-wiki canvassed to those discussions. I don't know how we can allow an editor to keep editing if we cannot have the minimum of trust in what they are telling us and if they are abusing our good faith. Wikipedia is built on trusting editors, and undermining that trust deserves a full ban—otherwise ArbCom is basically telling people to lie to them to try to get out of sanctions. Galobtter (talk) 01:22, 17 January 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 adopt the motion or provide additional information.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. The emails we have seen are quite conclusive that EytanMelech has made specific edits in specific ways at the direction of a banned user, the timing on the emails aligns very well with those edits, and the data we have also indicates that the emails we were forwarded here have not been tampered with. If they had come clean about what was going on I would have opted for the lesser sanction only, but proxying like this fundamentally undermines community trust. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per GeneralNotability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. GN says it; I also find this more clearcut. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my reasoning on the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. First choice. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. There is definitive evidence of edits, including edit summaries, coming directly from emails. I am still considering whether there is enough here for me to support a site ban, but at the moment am leaning against that. What changed between now and my initial comment? Quite simply my ability to trust in the evidence that was submitted went up quite a bit. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second chouce --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will wait to see if other evidence is submitted, but based on the evidence we've received and Eytan's statement below I currently plan to oppose this motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that at the moment, the evidence provided for this specific motion is insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nableezy: To me personally, this is not a technically accurate summary of the quality of the evidence provided by you. I'll explain my concern in an e-mail to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, my concern has been resolved – I'll have a look again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Marokwitz (20:00, 6 Jan) and EytanMelech (15:02, 5 Jan), thank you very much. EytanMelech, you write: Examples include requests for me to do reverts of edits or to change existing information in articles based on conflicting sources. You also write that you have ignored or replied to these in an "avoidant" way. If I understand correctly, you're saying that you never did what you have been asked for. Is this correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  EytanMelech, as far as I understand, the e-mails you refer to made you feel compelled to do something instead of ignoring them. They made you feel as if you're required to do what you have been asked for, or to provide an excuse whenever you're not doing so. You have my sympathies for this, and my respect for admitting this. Now – if I see correctly – your situation is as follows: You have made proxy edits for a banned editor, you felt compelled to do so, and admitting this final piece of yet-unadmitted behavior requires you to say that most of your previous responses were just a wordy attempt to avoid admitting this. To me personally, that would however be the most valuable and reasonable thing you can do if the accusation is correct. Think about it for a while perhaps. ArbCom's task is not to punish but to prevent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  EytanMelech, I'm not asking for evidence in this specific case here anymore as I've received enough for the support vote above. In case you are genuinely unaware of having made proxy edits, whether for the username you provided or whomever, I encourage you to have a close look at the e-mails you have received again, and to check if you have really never done exactly what you have been asked for. Perhaps that is an awakening experience; if it is, maybe you could provide a few diffs from your list of contributions that surprise you in hindsight. Unless that happens, I won't comment further on this motion here as everything has been said from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @EytanMelech: Have you at any point received any emails asking you to make any sort of edit (specific or general) on Wikipedia? If you are not comfortable answering this question publicly here please feel free to email the Arbitration Committee privately. - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The evidence shows that emails went out and then, shortly after, the exact requested edits were made. We are talking in some cases word for word copies. For all three users named, this happened enough times to consider sanctions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

I was unaware there was an arbitration request out me and was quite shocked to find out that there is a belief that I am taking part in canvassing or have been making proxy edits on behalf of banned users.

Let me start by saying that I was approached by user @Nableezy: via my talk page ^{[permanent section links: 1, 2]} on November 7th and December 12th of last year asking me if I had taken part in any sort of this type of behavior (being recruited to make edits/votes). I missed the first message, but quickly replied to the second one stating that I had not been given any edits or votes to put in by any user, blocked or unblocked.

As one can tell by my edit history, especially within the last few months, I have done a decent amount of work on articles surrounding Israel and Judaism, although mostly surrounding the Old Yishuv and old Jewish culture. I will not deny the fact that I have a pro-Israel stance, although I try not to let that get in the way of my impartiality, such as I did when I created the English Wikipedia article for the Killing of Yuval Castleman, a good samaritan who was shot and killed by an IDF soldier due to the shooter, Freija, suspecting him of being a terrorist.

I have also participated in many talk discussions and AfDs regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. I have voted in certain ways, but I can guarantee you that those are in respect to my genuine opinions on the subject and are not dictated by anyone else and I have never voted a certain way because I was told to by another user. I often browse articles surrounding the conflict and habitually check talk pages of articles, and if I see something to vote on there, I may if I believe I either have something to add or wish for my voice to be heard.

I am sorry that you believe me to be doing work on behalf of another user or users, but I simply am not. I value Wikipedia very much, as I have demonstrated in my nearly 6,000 edits on the site, and my 150+ articles created in the past few years. I will not lie when I say I am terrified of a ban with my work being locked away forever, but I have simply not done what has been accused of me, although I do suspect Nableezy had a word in this.

( This is an addition to my statement from the general discussion as reccomended by Makrowitz, as it is good evidence proving that I did not make proxy edits and that I complained about canvassing in real time.:

Let it be known for the record that I almost certainly did not have a "tangential relationship to the subjects" prior to the October 12 request on the Apartheid article on Wikipedia. 2 days prior, I made 6 edits to the Kfar Aza massacre page (with previously unused sourcing and over a thousand bytes of data), as well as an edit and comment on Two-State solution. Two days prior to that, I made over 2k bytes of edits to the Alexandria shooting page. My interest in these articles did not spawn from any sort of canvassing beggars from people like your stated Faggerbakke, but because of the October 7th attack, the deadliest single massacre of Jews in decades, which spawned a desire in me to improve and support coverage on.

In fact, I CONTACTED ANOTHER USER MONTHS AGO, COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO RECRUIT ME. I admitted I did agree with some of his ideas, but I did not believe it was right for him to try to make me make edits on his behalf. EytanMelech (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Cheers

EytanMelech (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I forgot to mention this when I submitted my statement, but let it be known that I am more than glad to answer any questions regarding this investigation.

Additionally, I would like to add comments regarding my issue with Nableezy in particular. As soon as I found out that I was being voted on for something Israel-Palestine related, I assume it had to have been him. He has previously asked me multiple times about this issue, and he also has been in edit disputes with me a few times on Israel-related articles. This is unsurprising, as he was recently sanctioned against editing in Israel-Palestine articles for battleground editing, and I suspect he is hosting a similar ideology here. I am aware that he has sent the Arbitration Committee information via email, although I cannot properly respond to the claims because I have gone through my edit history multiple months back and have struggled to find anything that aligns with the information that is being provided publicly to me. I suspect it will be near impossible to defend myself when I am not even being told what I did that counts as editing on behalf of another user. I also think it is quite odd that he is advocating against others for banning on Wikipedia when he himself has been penalized for problematic edit warring on behalf of his opinions himself.

(permanent section links added) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to Nableezy below] First of all, please remove my comment if I am not supposed to reply, I am not sure if I am allowed to directly address Nableezy in this thread, my accuser. This is my first time involved in one of these arbitration discussions.

I would like to say that I have looked back at my edits on contentious topics regarding Israel-Palestine conflict, and I have not seen a very good example of me having done anything of the sort that you address right here in your statement. I have definitely re-done an edit that someone did in examples of reverts, but it doesn't even look like I used similar edit summaries to recent edits of that period, and I have looked back to edits right before the start of the current war for this. If you are comfortable providing an example to me personally, I can address certain claims. EytanMelech (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to Aoidh above] Yes I have recieved emails before from people. The majority of my emails have simply been people asking for general Wikipedia help (i.e. questions and whatnot about sourcing, asking my opinion on certain edits & help with references), but I have also received emails from people who have directly asked me to make certain edits regarding the Israel Palestine conflict.

There are many emails, such as ones of this nature, that I have ignored, or have replied to in an avoidant manner (i.e. make an excuse for not fulfilling the request while still trying to be nice to be nice). Examples include requests for me to do reverts of edits or to change existing information in articles based on conflicting sources. EytanMelech (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree When asked to do so (most reverts from Fagerbakke, honestly), I would wait until more edits were done and would make the excuse "someone already reverted it", or I would say something like "I can't revert that, there is not a good reason." or "there's an edit war going on, sorry". If you provide me an email, I can send some screenshots of me being avoidant towards him. EytanMelech (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I did not make edits for Faggerbakke, and the amount of evidence I can show you will prove it. There are also many instances of me straight up ignoring him, in addition to ones of me saying that I don't want to. I never made any edits out of being compelled. I can send you screenshots of 13 different requests of his, showing I ignored him or said that I couldn't for an excuse reason. EytanMelech (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(response to ToBeFree in questioning section; not sure how the formatting works)
Well it would be helpful to know what actual edits I'm accused of making, because I don't have any actual way of "awakening" to anything when I don't have a clear answer of what I've been charged with. Pretty much everything I see on a skim of the 5,000 most recent edits of mine are the hundreds of hours I've spent creating 150+ articles on Wikipedia or doing newpagereview triage to help quality control for the site. EytanMelech (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are aware of the 15 discussions linked in the first motion above at #General facts? If I were you, that's where I'd start looking for edits relevant to this motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KevinL. I did see the motion listing the discussions. I don't deny that I commented in discussions, voicing my opinions in a few on that list, but I should rephrase what I said as I rushed my response to ToBeFree. I understand those are the allegations, but my frustration is not being able to defend myself against whatever evidence I have been accused of for those edits being made. I explain in ¶4 and 6 of my opening statement, in defense of allegations that I was involved in making edits to the actual pages in the I-P topic prior to my involvement in the discussions, including expansion of early pages during the conflict where I added sources and other information surrounding the conflict, as I was interesting in improving coverage of the topic as soon as the war started, and since I looked at these pages often, I voted on discussions I saw on pages when on the Wiki, not because a canvasser had me make proxy edits on their behalf.

I also often looked at pages for useful information to use when I would debate with others online in social media (i.e. someone makes a claim about Apartheid in Israel, and I went to wikipedia and Israel's page to pull up info/sources to respond to them with, as was the case when I voted on the apartheid discussion on Israel's talk page. EytanMelech (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that I have seen, and sent to the committee, shows, in my view conclusively, that a banned editor made requests for specific edits that included edit-summaries to be used, and that this editor carried out the requested edits and copy-pasted the provided edit summaries. If that is not considered proxying for a banned user then I would appreciate some clarification as to what the committee does consider to be "proxying". nableezy - 00:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree I responded to your email, and I think it addresses your concerns. You can ask others who have publicly stated they were contacted by editors who were later blocked as socks, such as Pincrete (diff) to send you the original emails if they might be amenable to doing so. nableezy - 01:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Nableezy I cannot add much to the info in the diff nableezy offered above (copied here) beyond confirming that I was canvassed to vote (implicitly in favour of keeping "Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society"). I would have been amenable to forwarding the email sent to me from the now banned user, but I now appear to have deleted it. The email address of the sender was very generic and international and unlikely to add any useful info. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already expressed my general concerns, and I have specific concerns raised by the statements by this editor and DavidRoth above. Posting it here but it applies to DavidRoth as well.

If I understand it, correctly, both were not canvassing but were the targets of canvassing, allegedly complying with the requests of an unnamed banned editor. This raises a few bothersome scenarios that may or may not be relevant here, but certainly may be in the future. I can share them with arbcom privately by email in more detail, but suffice to say that, as a general principle, banning people on the basis of being targets of canvassers raises a number of troubling issues. Please let me know if you want me to email you with my concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Oppose. We don't ban editors for canvassing or meatpuppetry. Canvassing by itself merits a warning, exclusion of the canvassed !vote(s) from the relevant discussion(s), and, if canvassing occurs on-wiki, possibly a temporary block or topic ban imposed on the person(s) orchestrating said canvassing. Off-wiki canvassing, as long as it isn't harassment, there's nothing we can do about except slap {{notavote}} on the affected pages and discount obviously canvassed comments made by people who clearly have no policy knowledge. Again, as long as the off-wiki stuff isn't "canvassing by extortion" or some other form of harassment, we shouldn't be sanctioning editors on-wiki for things they say off-wiki.

Proxying for a banned editor is a form of meatpuppetry, which again, does not merit the most severe sanction short of WMF intervention that can be possibly issued. A person making edits at the direction of a banned user, or reinstating the reverted edits of a banned user, is taking responsibility for that content as if they had made the edit themselves. If the content of the edits is problematic, it should be dealt with accordingly, up to and including blocks if necessary, but again, we don't outright ban editors with no or minimal sanction history just for making some edits that might've been better off not made. The action of "blind proxying" (i.e. proxying for banned users without stopping to examine if the edits themselves are appropriate) should be met with a warning for a first offense, and then standard meatpuppetry procedures if it continues after a warning. Yes, I know these procedures frequently include indef blocks, but a standard indef block, while it has the same technical effect, is much less severe of a sanction than an ArbCom ban. But if the edits themselves are not problematic, and the only issue with them is that they were requested by or originally made by a banned user, there is absolutely zero reason to sanction another user simply for agreeing with the POV of a banned user, especially if an editor in good standing who wasn't canvassed had made those exact same edits and wouldn't face any sanction.

In short, I was completely shocked to see this on my watchlist. This is a serious overreach and the fact that it is even being considered is deeply concerning. Again, unless we are dealing with some form of harassment (i.e. "canvassing by extortion"), we do not ban editors merely for participating in discussions after being canvassed to them, nor do we ban editors for engaging in "routine" meatpuppetry, especially for a first offense. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to User:ToBeFree: EytanMelech has provided new evidence showing that they complained in public, expressing concern about the canvassing when it happened and asked whether a certain user can be blocked. Do you think this new evidence should be factored into the decision in his case? Marokwitz (talk) 20:00, 6 January 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 adopt the motion or provide additional information.

4) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my explanation in the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Barkeep49's assessment regarding Homerethegreat. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Evidence is not clear and convincing to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. The evidence is not definitive enough in my view to warrant a total ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Barkeep49 below in the TBAN motion. firefly ( t · c ) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Barkeep49 in the TBAN motion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I do not find credible his assertion he received a single email given the nature and timing of edits that were made. There are too many instances that the first time he shows up to an article is after an email (ex 1 of several: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). Given that he does appear to be exercising his own editorial judgement and in light of his overall editing, I do not think a site ban is necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Barkeep. For all three editors but possibly Homerethegreat more so, I'd like to see them take this an opportunity to establish a strong track record in other topic areas. That would, of course, stand them in good stead for an appeal but the experience would be valuable for returning to ARBPIA discussions anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Barkeep says it exactly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Barkeep49. firefly ( t · c ) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Aoidh and Barkeep49, and agree with HJMitcheel about wanting a strong track record in other topic areas. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do not see clear evidence that Homerethegreat has been acting as a result of off-wiki communications or other things that ArbCom is uniquely qualified to handle, and so I think it is not appropriate for us to jump to a TBAN. We have plenty of community processes available if their editing in ARBPIA is an issue. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• After analyzing the evidence, the other two ban decisions were an easy result to me; this one isn't. I probably won't support it unless we receive additional evidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence shows that emails went out and then, shortly after, the exact requested edits were made. We are talking in some cases word for word copies. For all three users named, this happened enough times to consider sanctions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will open frankly with my bitter disappointment in Wikipedia. I can’t stress enough how terrible my experience has been over the past few months. Having felt racism throughout my life due to my identity outside Wikipedia, I was naive to think it would not happen here. I believed that editors aimed to build a neutral, credible encyclopedia. However, I have been met at every turn with bad faith, accusations, and sometimes even terminology or negatively worded content based on presumptions about my identity. Just a few days ago, User:ScottishFinnishRadish removed such a statement. No, I will not reveal my political positions or my identity publicly. Even now, I believe an editor should remain impartial and neutral, regardless of their opinion. If ArbCom wishes to know my political opinion, I will email them.

I used to love Wikipedia, and when the war began, I felt it was my responsibility and privilege to edit in ARBPIA. I believed I had to do it because I saw how misinformation could spread. Yes, I’ve seen what appears to be partisan editing. I imagine everyone has hundreds of articles on their watchlists, and it's likely that people check each other’s contributions. I’ve checked other users' contributions too, and if that’s illegal, I sincerely apologize. ARBPIA is far from my main interest. I’ve written over 30 articles on topics that interest me more than the conflict, and a look at my edit history will show exactly that.

After reading Pincrete’s statement, I find it extremely troubling that an ArbCom investigation was opened when the forwarding party has deleted it. Why is good faith implied for Pincrete and not for me or others who have not voted in the same line as Nableezy? Why?

I'm asking whoever is in charge to divulge the evidence and send me a copy of whatever evidence exists against me. This is crucial; without it, I have no idea and no chance to understand what I'm being accused of. I wish the evidence to be presented in full transparency, and I will cooperate fully with ArbCom to prove the falsehood of the accusations.

Never did I imagine I would feel in Wikipedia what I experienced outside when I lived in Europe. I was naive. No more; I am left bitterly disappointed. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @Tamzin’s statement, I will note that I wrote “Strongly support the lifting of block” because that’s what I saw written, and I read what people wrote and I thought that was strong so I repeated it, I will also note that I did not know one was not allowed to say again the same arguments so I’m sorry for that. I will also note Gilabrand was one of the first users in English Wiki that removed stuff I wrote and changed some stuff I did and I actually learned that way what was not allowed or recommended and so I was surprised that the user was to be banned and so felt I had to do something. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Homerethegreat with the greatest respect, your statement does not address the matter at hand. ArbCom is not concerned with your politics or identity. Personally, what I want to get to the bottom of is: did you receive emails asking you to make certain edits or contribute to certain discussions and if so did you do as requested? We have evidence that the requests were sent and that in at least some cases the intended recipients made the requested edits shortly thereafter so if you didn't make proxy edits how did you independently come to the discussions linked above and to the opinions that you offered? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to @HJ Mitchell: I received a single email on October 22 using foul language, requesting that I edit a page not listed above, which I did not do. In other instances, I received private messages from different editors, but these were unrelated to voting requests.

As for how I reached each of the discussions, my usual routine involves checking my watchlist, participating and checking in different WikiProjects, and occasionally viewing other users' talk pages. I assume this is how I encountered the discussions. Like every editor, I have my own methods for finding topics of interest and deciding what interests me, I am not reliant on others for this. My daily routine includes looking at WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine, and other pages to find AFDs, RfCs, requests for merger, requested moves and other matters that interest me. Sometimes, I review other editors' edit histories to stay informed about ongoing activities.

In reply to @Guerillero:I would like to know which of the above discussion links apply to the evidence in my case. I don't see any privacy reasons preventing this from being provided. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note that Homerethegreat !voted to unblock Gilabrand in between the !votes by Atbannett and Hmbr, which as noted above were canvassed and led to both of those users being CUblocked. I was unable to find a smoking gun that Homerethegreat was themself canvassed, but all three users' votes began with the same "Strongly support the lifting of block", all made similar rationales describing Gila's editing in flattering terms, and all were infrequent AN posters. Homer, for instance, had only posted there once before. On its own that isn't dispositive, but may compound whatever private evidence ArbCom has. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these discussions are relevant regarding Homerethegreat:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Biased_editing_on_contentious_topic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_IOHANNVSVERVS

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Oppose. We don't ban editors for canvassing or meatpuppetry. Canvassing by itself merits a warning, exclusion of the canvassed !vote(s) from the relevant discussion(s), and, if canvassing occurs on-wiki, possibly a temporary block or topic ban imposed on the person(s) orchestrating said canvassing. Off-wiki canvassing, as long as it isn't harassment, there's nothing we can do about except slap {{notavote}} on the affected pages and discount obviously canvassed comments made by people who clearly have no policy knowledge. Again, as long as the off-wiki stuff isn't "canvassing by extortion" or some other form of harassment, we shouldn't be sanctioning editors on-wiki for things they say off-wiki.

Proxying for a banned editor is a form of meatpuppetry, which again, does not merit the most severe sanction short of WMF intervention that can be possibly issued. A person making edits at the direction of a banned user, or reinstating the reverted edits of a banned user, is taking responsibility for that content as if they had made the edit themselves. If the content of the edits is problematic, it should be dealt with accordingly, up to and including blocks if necessary, but again, we don't outright ban editors with no or minimal sanction history just for making some edits that might've been better off not made. The action of "blind proxying" (i.e. proxying for banned users without stopping to examine if the edits themselves are appropriate) should be met with a warning for a first offense, and then standard meatpuppetry procedures if it continues after a warning. Yes, I know these procedures frequently include indef blocks, but a standard indef block, while it has the same technical effect, is much less severe of a sanction than an ArbCom ban. But if the edits themselves are not problematic, and the only issue with them is that they were requested by or originally made by a banned user, there is absolutely zero reason to sanction another user simply for agreeing with the POV of a banned user, especially if an editor in good standing who wasn't canvassed had made those exact same edits and wouldn't face any sanction.

In short, I was completely shocked to see this on my watchlist. This is a serious overreach and the fact that it is even being considered is deeply concerning. Again, unless we are dealing with some form of harassment (i.e. "canvassing by extortion"), we do not ban editors merely for participating in discussions after being canvassed to them, nor do we ban editors for engaging in "routine" meatpuppetry, especially for a first offense. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Homerethegreat should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning is sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to @The Wordsmith: I feel that the comparison with WP:EEML is eye-opening. In that case, not a single editor was sanctioned for merely being canvassed to participate in a discussion or perform an edit; rather, all the sanctioned editors were also actively involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, canvassing others, sharing their account passwords, including in once case, an administrator (!).

Despite the fact their conduct was much worse than the allegations in this case, not a single editor was indefinitely site banned or topic banned.

My conclusion is that, based on this precedent, being a target of canvassing is not sanctionable by an indefinite topic ban. Marokwitz (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous more recent examples where people were sanctioned for the kidns of behaviors in this case. An example I can think of off the top of my head is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. In casting my vote in this case I have take[n] into account [our] earlier decisions when deciding new cases Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: In the case you are citing, one user was indefinitely topic-banned from pages about weather for canvassing other editors off-wiki. Is there a precedent for indefinitely topic-banning an editor for being the canvassed party? Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. First, it wasn't noted in the WPTC evidence, but multiple parties but asked for and acted on the asks of others. Unfortunately the ones that are straight "acting on others" I can think of off the top of my head are all ArbCom blocks, which means they were not discussed publicly at all. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 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 adopt the motion or provide additional information.