Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 19

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023
Hi, To Whom This May Concern,

If you look on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Is_Anybody_Down%3F# I have added information to this discussion, as this has been an ongoing issue of my client. There has been a discussion about the validity of this page before, and they had not provided any validity, and instead, they made excuses to keep violating my client, and had only bullied and harassed the user's accounts that disagreed with them and had gotten them banned from Wikipedia instead of being respectful towards the people involved in the discussion page. They have wiped the old discussion page clean from what I can see, and there is no record of their misbehavior towards the people questioning the content of the linked page.

Help with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and attention of this matter. Silverscure (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not an appropriate request for this page. You may seek help at the WP:Teahouse or at the administrators' noticeboard. Izno (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Paradise Chronicle (August 2023)

 * Original discussion

Paradise Chronicle was blocked by in December 2019 for abuse of multiple accounts. Based, in part, on two emails where Paradise Chronicle deceived the committee, we overturned that block believing there to be insufficient evidence to uphold it. Then, in July 2021 (approximately 18 months later), Paradise Chronicle emailed the committee regarding the block, confirming the sockpuppetry, and apologising. The committee did not take any action at that time. Since being unblocked by the committee, Paradise Chronicle has been warned in an Arbcom case and has been blocked for edit warring - his behaviour has not been exemplary. Within the last week, he has been badgering TonyBallioni by email and on his talk page, suggesting that there was some failing on Tony's part.

Motion: Paradise Chronicle Banned

 * Enacted - KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1)  At this point, given the refusal to "drop the stick", the ongoing badgering of TonyBallioni, and the history of Paradise Chronicle's deception on Wikipedia, I am raising a public motion to place an Arbcom block on Paradise Chronicle. I do welcome comments from the community and indeed, . WormTT(talk) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Deception is corrosive to processes which rely on good faith actors. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I was leaning towards accepting before the below feedback was received, so my thanks to the community for the feedback and justification of my initial thoughts. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) To reveal some behind the scenes pieces, when a private block was first proposed I was pretty firmly against it despite my genuine disgust at what had occurred. It felt like penalizing someone for an Arb mistake and for volunteering an admission of wrong doing. Any arb could have, but didn't or at least didn't express that they had, done basic due diligence when PC "came clean" in 2021. The justifications for blocking now also felt better as an admin action - or even better an admin action plus community ban - rather than Arb action. But here we are and I'm supporting it because I'm not going to let my perfect stand in the way of the good. I think there's just overwhelming evidence that PC doesn't get why so many people are so upset. And when the cause of that upset is a willful breach of trust by someone whose focus of work is in a contentious topic area that suggests to me that there is ongoing project risk by allowing that person to continue to edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Comments to follow. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Broadly per GN and CaptainEek. What I'd want to see as a minimum prerequisite before any unban is a genuine understanding of why PC's behavior here was bad. PC still seems to think what they did was fine and justifiable. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The previous ArbCom erred in accepting the unblock, and per my colleagues above we have not seen "go forth and sin no more" behavior following that mistake. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) We erred in not reblocking when the deception came to light. We could have let that lie, but PC has continued to misbehave in other ways. His badgering of Tony, general failure to drop the stick, and inability to see what he did wrong, combine to make this ban necessary. Given the procedural history, ArbCom is the right group to make this block; it would be unfair to thrust this upon the community. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I've asked myself why I would not support a site ban, and came up empty. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Eek and GN — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Nicely put by Eek. Cabayi (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:
 * 1) Upon further thought, I'm abstaining due to some recent interaction with this user (see User_talk:Moneytrees/Archive_28 and  This AN post Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I am unwilling to use the arbie stick but there's not a lot to support retaining them here. Izno (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions

 * Interested observers should read the discussion on Tony's talkpage, where numerous Arbs have already commented. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that I intend to support this motion but will need to write a few sentences on it before I formally vote. I also recommend copyediting the motion text — I prefer a ban, i.e., but could do with something like Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ WormTT(talk) 14:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Recent precedent is that public motions are bans and private ones are blocks so I would support changing to ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear community feedback. I'm of the firm belief that the 2021 Arbitration Committee made a mistake (and as a member of that Committee, that mistake is partly on my shoulders) but strictly undoing that now is punatitive not preventative. So the question, for me, is whether previous deception + 2021 warning about conduct in the Kurds topic area + more recent conduct is sufficient for a ban/block. I am still considering whether 's layout of actionable conduct is more a justification for individual admin or ArbCom. So if there is other feedback about PC's conduct (good or concerning) I wish to hear this before casting my vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also on the fence, not about whether a block is warranted, but about whether ArbCom is needed to place it. The existence of this discusion is not an injunction gainst a single admin doing so, even without seeing the private evidence that the committee has. On the other hand, I agree that we dropped the ball here, so there is also a feeling of obligation to correct that error rather than simply pass the situaion back to the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion by Paradise Chronicle
Hi all, most of you know me and that I am rather friendly and collaborative when approached. I for now requested the deletion of the diff archive motivated by the comment from Floq I remember for their humorous edits at RfAs. And I apologize to the participants in the discussions for having caused concern in the last few hours. I have not used the appropriate wording for my aims which initially were meant in good faith, which I hope can also be confirmed in my email to TB in March 2022, which I have also shared with the ArbCom. This edit is not meant to offend anyone and I'll be back for a bit more later. I'll try to keep it short.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I want to keep myself short again. A site ban is at stake, and as far as I know the site banned don't have user page anymore. I invested quite some time in the project, had successes and failures of which I'd like to remember me and others as well. So I recreate it here, where I believe it is not getting deleted. On the site ban I have a little objection, I don't understand why I'll get site-banned since in commons I upload files frequently and was granted autopatrolled without me having requested it. Thats not a preventive block in my opinion. Again, this objection is not meant to offend anyone, you can just ignore it if you don't agree with it or see it as a misunderstanding. Else, a bit also motivated by the demand for dropping the stick, I'll take a wiki-break, but will still observe the development of the discussion and probably follow suit to some of the suggestions made. I want to be remembered as a collaborative editor and hope it works. Have a nice day.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't appropriate to dump your userpage here. I have removed that content from this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with the removal by Hammersoft. The version is still accessible over the history, which at sitebanned users its sometimes not.


 * It's the first time I read of this Standard Offer, would have been good to know about this at the time of my initial block or also my coming clear. That I violated the sock puppetry rules is clear also to me and my coming clear on my deception was intended to have a clean account. I have also seen Barkeep49s concern that a re-block is more punitive than preventive and I agree to that. On other sanctions discussed, I believe a discussion with diffs and links is needed and that it is a real discussion in which I am requested to reply, not one I am suggested to drop the stick after having made one reply which was the case at the discussion at TBs talk page and also one of the motivations of the motion. To find a solution and end to the discussion and release you to more pressing admin/arb issues, I suggest you find a reasonable block to which I can appeal to. Communication was not the best at both ends and we both assumed good faith at the time of my coming clear. Since the standard offer for regular violations is 6 months, I suggest it be below.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the a bit belated response to the text of the motion. I was sincerely more worried about the site ban and just wanted to drop the stick. But there are a few points I believe merit a clarification also in order to be treated with as much as transparency as possible.
 * To respond on the interaction between me and TB per email, that was not last week, but in March 2022. I shared it with the Arbcom last week (with TB in the CC) to make our interaction more transparent to the ArbCom. That I violated the sock puppetry rules I knew and did not, and do not contest.
 * On the block for edit warring
 * That one was only short and the blocking admin unblocked me after a bit more than an hour because they had doubts as well. In my opinion, I have reverted to the same version they had asked me to before they blocked me.
 * Here the communication between me and El C at the time.
 * diff where El C explains to which version I should have reverted.
 * diff of the version they asked me to revert, and
 * diff of the version I had self-reverted. Just click on previous edit, and you'll see it is the one.
 * But I have no remorse about the block, it was a partial block and circumstances were confusing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a bit researched what a site ban actually means and it appears it doesn't affect the sister projects and I can still edit at commons. Therefore I am a bit relieved. I suggest to put an English before Wikipedia at WP:SBAN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Community discussion

 * As a well-known long-standing fanboy of TonyB's (hence probable partisanship), I've been watching his page, and the sheer number of not only arbs but admins generally commenting there—all in the negative—is eyebrow-raising. I think you only see a collective noun of admins like that at ARCA these days; not even ANI. So when after multiple walls of text from PC, and multiple critiques by return, their comment that they still find TB's block a bit offensive has to be one of the most tone-deaf and blind assessments ever. WP:MGTADOT applies in spades. We may not particularly like blocking for CIR, but when such a dearth of self-realisation is combined with underhand chicanery, long stories, and general horse beatings, I think the ratio, in terms of volunteer-to-time-productivity, is pretty clear.  SN54129  14:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit from me first for the community (arbs already have seen it): my essay like post here covers my overall views. Next for the arbs: if you haven't, I encourage you to look through the 'diff archive' PC has created. A lot of those diffs reflect more poorly on them than the people they're talking about and contribute towards the tendentious nature here.Last as comment on AC vs the community: I think this could have been handled individually by an admin if needed, but since Worm has already proposed it here in public and there is the opportunity for community input, I wouldn't punt it back at this time. Don't plan on making more comments unless an arb specifically requests it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this is in that gray area where it isn't clear what to do. If it was 1 week ago, I'd obviously reblock.  If it was 10 years ago, I'd obviously say it's water under the bridge.  But 2 years ago (or 3.5, depending on if we start counting from the lie, or from the time ArbCom became aware of the lie), it's a harder call.  I'd be tempted to not reblock, but make it clear that we are utterly sick of their behavior, and the next time there is any further disruption, it will result in a quick indef block and de facto siteban.  But I wouldn't think a reblock now was out of left field. Oh, and I'd suggest deleting their page with all the diffs. They can keep that crap offline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the age and private communications involved that the regular admin corps doesn't have access to, I can't say whether previous Committees erred in either the unblock or failure to reblock. I think everybody (except PC) acknowledges that TonyBalloni acted reasonably with the original block. Based solely on the current situation, I do question if there's really enough there there for Arbcom to enact a siteban by motion. Arbcom has enacted plenty of "At wit's end"/"Enough is enough" sanctions, but based on the publicly available evidence I really don't see us being at that point where it wouldn't be overly punitive. I do believe that if PC doesn't drop the stick immediately and leave it dropped, any admin would be justified in issuing an indefinite block as WP:NOTHERE. No admin would be likely to undo it, making that a de facto siteban. I'd be fine doing it myself if needed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment at Tony's talkpage as I've been watching the thread for a few days. Like the Wordsmith, I didn't follow, know or understand the original block. That being said I've watched the back and forth interactions, and each reply from PC sidesteps the points that Tony makes, making this a case of WP:IDHT. The only reason I haven't made the block personally is I haven't had the time to independently review the situation, but even from the talkpage, it's almost at the point of that not even being required to block. The discussion is nothing but a time-sink because of the IDHT. I would have been more blunt in my comments on the talkpage if this were my block to point out the double standard. -- Amanda (she/her)  07:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My feedback is that the drip-drip-drip at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 44 shows that Paradise Chronicle should be removed from Wikipedia. Talented yet corrosive contributors are destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From this interaction of mine on ANEW with PC a couple of months ago I see that many of the issues they have were not confined to that one area. To learn, especially after all his comments over there when I brought up their block history, that now the block was correct and that he lied to the committee ... well, for me there is no argument against a ban; in fact this seems to have been a lot longer in the coming than I thought then. I guess I might not need to choose my time and place after all. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On [] they removed sourced content also on infoboxes they use "nationality" field as ethnicity field and adding "Kurdish" [] despite MOS states it should be not used as ethnicity. WP:INFOBOXNTLY as an experienced user they should know this. They did this on other pages also. He is several times blocked for socking for edit wars (mostly Kurdish related) and is warned by Arbitration but it did not help as you can see my diffs above. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At their talkpage they still does not know why they getting a ban [] Shadow4dark (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also watched the discussion unfolding on TB's talk page. I wasn't going to take any action or comment because the arbs seemed to have the situation in hand, but since Barkeep49 and Beeblebrox have said they would like input from the community, I'll say this. The original unblock was under false pretenses, and eighteen months of maintaining those pretenses is eighteen months of lying. Lying is obviously corrosive, and it is explicitly prohibited by WP:CIV - I believe the block should have been reinstated in 2021 when the lie was admitted, and an unblock should only have been available under the standard offer. So, PC got a very considerable break in not being reblocked, and should have considered themselves very fortunate and endeavored to be a model citizen thereafter. Instead, in that time, they have received arbcom warnings, edit warring blocks, and now they are either sealioning/trolling on TB's talk page. Enough already. Siteban. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To the point: All this legalistic stuff is totally unnecessary. The person lied to get unblocked, and now admits to the deception, therefore there's no need for miles of "due process" red tape or disquisitions from the Committee - just issue a site ban, already, and the thing is done.  Get on with it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing" :)   SN54129  11:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of machination against ArbCom, followed by continued and ongoing disruption two years later, is exactly the sort of situation in which ArbCom would be within its right to enact a site ban, and it should do so. This might have perhaps been a complete non-factor if Paradise Chronicle had chosen to drop the stick, but they have failed to do so. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe a site ban is necessary, not only because of PC's disruption but to avoid the impression that if you lie to ArbCom and cop to it later, you can get away with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A minor point: As the motion is for a site-ban, not an ArbCom block, then should it not be titled "Paradise Chronicle Banned", not "Blocked"? Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 05:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good spot @Tol Missed that. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Question on how sanctions apply to pages
I notice that "Armenia-Azerbaijan 2" is listed under general sanctions. Does this mean general sanctions apply to any editor, once notified, editing any article related to this topic? Or does it mean an administrator may place a notice on the talk page of an article related to this topic, and then editors may be notified of the sanctions? What brought this to my attention a section at the reliable sources noticeboard, Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have not made any edits related to this topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So this is confusing and I'm going to do my best to explain it but also I suspect I won't fully answer your question. General sanctions describe restrictions to editors in a topic. They can be placed by either the community or ArbCom. When they're placed by ArbCom they're a designated "contentious topic". When they're placed by the community they go by different names. In the case of Aermenia-Azerbaijian there are both ArbCom imposed restrictions and community imposed restrictions. The rules about ArbCom's restrictions can be found at WP:CTOP. The community rules can vary based on a number of factors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Motion: CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin (September 2023)

 * Original discussion

Motion: Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account
Enacted – firefly  ( t · c ) 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)

 * 1) As proposer and per my comments in the motion above. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Support over the first motion, with the understanding that this doesn't necessarily preclude a full case on the merits per Wugapodes depending on how the vote on opening the case above goes. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) This is fine too. Izno (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) sure --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Strikes a good balance. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) I like this one a lot more, and do not consider the concerns raised a few sections up to be well-founded. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure this is necessarily better than the Iban, but if it works, it works. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 01:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Primefac (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) This is fine too. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion (Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan shared account)
Is this supposed to be on the talk page and not the main page? Just double checking. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, motions are archived here and then off to the /Archive pages. Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Double checking something
@MJL, I think the infobox motion did not pass. Did you mean to mark that one as enacted? Just double checking. If I'm way off just ignore me :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Novem Linguae: Uhh.. just pretend that didn't happen. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Workshop pages
Are workshop pages being phased out from the arbitration process, or are they being selectively excluded from certain ArbCom cases for specific reasons? I ask because I've noticed that a handful of recent cases (e.g. AlisonW and the currently ongoing Industrial agriculture) do not have workshop pages, and I don't remember any community discussion or formal notice from the committee that workshop exclusion is a procedural decision subject to ArbCom discretion. If somebody monitoring this page would mind providing a link to any relevant discussion on this topic, I'd really appreciate it. Kurtis (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See . The link at the start of the section points to the motion that resulted in that section. There were a series of motions that were discussed about being more flexible with the case structure. isaacl (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Isaac. 🙂 Kurtis (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When the committee first started talking about changing this to at least sometimes not have them, I found out that there never was a requirement for them to begin with. Some arb invented the idea out of thin air way back when and it just kind of became a standard thing that was expected, with no actual mandate, so that's why there was no need for a formal change to WP:ARBPOL.
 * They were originally added as a space for the arbs themselves to draft the proposed decision, but the arbitration wiki took over that function thirteen or fourteen years ago and workshops became instead a place for literally anyone to draft their preffered version of a proposed decision.
 * I personally find that they cause more problems than they solve in cases that focus on only one or two editors, in particular admin conduct cases. They tend to turn into one user after another proposing basically the same fairly obvious outcomes. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ECR amendment an specific GS pages
Hi, while WP:ECR has recently been amended to specifically restrict interactions of non-ECP users on protected talk pages, pages such as WP:GS/RUSUKR have not been amended to reflect this change. Is there a process for these pages to be updated? Please ping in reply. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * GS is a community-managed area. If you believe they should be using the same ECR as arb areas do and thus you wish to update it, WP:AN is the appropriate location to discuss. Izno (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note community-authorized general sanctions are now discussed at the village pump for proposals, with a notice placed at the administrators' noticeboard (the change was a result of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1176650776#Proposal_to_change_the_venue_for_new_community-authorized_general_sanctions village pump discussion]). isaacl (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Understanding arbitration
At the ongoing WT:ACN discussion related to Beeblebrox RevelationDirect wrote This sounds like a failing with the information available here, which is something we should correct - someone should not have to go elsewhere to understand the arbitration process. RD: Were you aware of Guide to arbitration? If not, the first thing we should do is make that easier to find - do you remember where you were looking/what search terms you were using? Would it have answered your questions? If you did find that, what was it lacking that would have helped you? Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that the Guide to Arbitration is great if you are, in the abstract, looking to understand Arbitration. It's much less useful when you are a party to an actual case and are wondering "what am I supposed to do now?". question to candidates about his guide. That reminded me of my own desire to improve the guide. I began some work on the arb's wiki and after some discussion, the current vision is 7 guides designed to help you know, at any given moment, what is going on and the idea is that a party could focus on just the guide they need at that moment rather than trying to understand everything. I've completed my very rough draft of Guide 1. Ultimately I'd love for these guides to be as close to 1000 words (or less) as possible because 5 minutes of reading time for a person at 200 wpm feels reasonable, but the first draft is currently at nearly 1800 words. I'd be very interested to hear what questions RD had as I've done some combing through some cases I drafted (and am thus most familiar with where questions were asked) but more is definitely better. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not RD, but but my answer to most of those questions would be "no". The problem isn't understanding the arbitration process itself, but rather the history and motivations of the individuals involved in such processes. WPO is, among other things, where people go to air grievances and post comments that would get them strung up by their heels for casting aspersions if they said them onwiki. It's true that many of these grievances seem to be sour grapes from editors who were correctly sanctioned or otherwise censured for disruption, but enough of them have merit that I think it's worth reading. It's also true that there's plenty of name-calling and mudslinging, but there's also useful meta-commentary and criticism of the kind that often isn't seen here because people are afraid to be critical of "power users" and long-established institutions in places where they are likely to be quickly dog-piled and shouted down. Barring some dramatic (and in my opinion unlikely) changes in community norms I can't see that functionality being effectively imported onto Wikipedia.It is very much a mixed bag, and separating the wheat from the chaff can be arduous and at times even demoralizing. I've heard it called "ANI without participation from the accused" which I don't disagree with and I've seen some pretty appalling stuff over there including outing and harassment, but we also have WPO and its regulars to thank for uncovering 's machinations, among other things. I do have quite a few problems with how it's run&mdash;namely, I think the admins over there are often far too willing to look the other way when harassment and trash-talking happens over there&mdash;but I also think it has its uses, which is why I browse it and occasionally comment. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 01:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a lot of questions during ArbComm and the guide answered the factual process ones. It didn't answer other questions that required analyzing ArbComm members mindset though:
 * When is a dispute ripe enough to merit an ArbComm case? Specifically, if an ANI is open but focused on the content dispute instead of the behavior, is that enough?
 * Why are there e-mails to ArbComm when there's not private evidence?
 * To what extent do ArbComm members decide based on evidence in the case?
 * To what extent do ArbComm members decided based on individual past history with editors?
 * Is it unusual to reopen the evidence phase after it is closed?
 * What is the practical purpose of the Workshop phase for an involved party?
 * While I didn't post these on Wikipediocracy, discussions of old cases touched on these but maybe some essays could be written on Wikipedia instead. Candid analysis of ArbComm performance probably needs to stay on Wikipediocracy though.
 * And to be clear, I'm not coming from a place of grievance at all here, I was the filing party and I am completely satisfied (although saddened) by the unanimous outcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Just read through both these guides; thank you for posting them! Guerillero's comes closer to the practical "what do I do" guidance I would have been looking for from a participant perspective. Both sections on the Workshop page still seems like inside baseball to me though, but maybe that phase is meant to help the arbitrators more than participants.


 * I appreciate both of your efforts to make the process clearer, no matter what anyone at Wikipediocracy says about you! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I am at the very beginning of my efforts and so this is helpful. I will say that the tone an individual can do (ala Guerillero) is different than the tone of something "official". But knowing what worked and didn't is helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RevelationDirect I have now done my first draft of guide 2. I am curious to hear if you feel like I've addressed question 1. I, of course, also welcome feedback from others. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that does provide a lot of clarity for question 1. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RevelationDirect can you explain what you mean by . I have a guess given what case you were involved with but want to make sure I understand. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, during the only case I was in, all of my communication to discuss things like word counts and evidence or process questions were on the case talk pages but there were multiple references there of another involved party sending e-mails to the committee. The official guide mentions here that e-mail is used for private evidence so I assumed that such evidence was being submitted.  I found out later that those e-mails were just the same type of mundane procedural requests I was making on the case talk pages. (You have the actual e-mails while I only have public posts discussing them, so obviously your view will be more complete here.)It would have been helpful to know that, based on the involved party’s personal preferences, e-mails can be used interchangeably with the case talk pages to communicate to the Arb Comm during a case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I expected it to be but the details you gave really are helpful as it gives a more complete explanation than the sort of simple one I had in my head. I'm trying to figure out how to appropriately write general guidance about this as opposed to edge cases. I'm going to keep noodling on this. As for what's in the official guide now, the reason I'm spending time on this project (and will eventually ask the rest of the committee to spend some time on it) are because of the shortcomings in the current guide. Thanks again, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can not really comment on WPO but what I know is that for arbitration, especially if the case is about a one person conduct, both sides are expected to come with diffs. Many diffs. Often so many diffs that they can not just be collected within a reasonable time (say a few days unless the party works full-time on collecting diffs), and I guess the filing party in many cases either collects the diffs for a long time off-wiki or knows some place (like certain on-wiki discussions) where the diffs can be taken from relatively quickly. The defending party can comment on the diffs but usually is not able to provide more diffs to add a proper context to the accusation. Collecting such diffs on wiki is prohibited (which I generally find a good thing). Which means in response to the original question - no, no onwiki information is going to help in this case. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not actually prohibited, simply expected to be used promptly at a noticeboard or ArbCom proceeding. WP:POLEMIC: Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. That said, there is little if any benefit to doing this on-wiki instead of in a private text editor. If one just wants to check the formatting and stuff, paste it into a sandbox and hit "Show preview" without saving it on-site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Lingering mention of "discretionary sanctions"
At WP:ARCA, the instructions box mentions and links to WP:Discretionary sanctions still, instead of CTOP. Would just fix it, but I know ArbCom is skeptical about random editors messing with their page content. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing/alternatives
I didn't see any reasonable place to insert this in the current canvassing discussion. Is there a reason we wouldn't be considering an alternative to a indef complete ban, perhaps a topic ban from PIA, broadly construed? I sort of get the feeling some of these people have been used as not-fully-aware pawns. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)
Original discussion

'''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.'''

General facts
1) Since at least October 2023, there has been an ongoing effort by one or more banned editors to canvass discussions within the Israel-Palestine topic area and asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view. Based on the evidence received by the Committee, the following discussions have been targeted: The Arbitration Committee would like to thank the editors who reported canvassing. If editors have any additional canvassing evidence, please bring it to the Committee's attention. The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse.
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians
 * Talk:Allegations of war crimes against Israel#Requested move 11 October 2023
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial
 * Talk:Israel#Request for Comment on apartheid charges
 * Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#Unexplained removal
 * Talk:Ahed Tamimi#Instagram account suspended following call to butcher civilians
 * Talk:From the river to the sea#Lead dominant View
 * Talk:From the river to the sea#For Clarity on Removal of Kelley Source
 * Talk:Gaza Strip#"Oppressive one-party state"
 * Template talk:Genocide navbox#Correction of date range and citation in need of correction
 * Talk:Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merge proposal
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society
 * Talk:Israel#RFC on human rights language in lead
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre
 * Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC on sexual violence in lead section


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * 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)
 * KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is well-supported by the evidence that the Arbitration Committee has received. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We do indeed have this evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is plainly well-supported by the evidence the Committee received. firefly  ( t · c ) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While additional comments and evidence are welcome, these are indeed the facts as we have them. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 13:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cabayi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maxim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We indeed received this. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions (General facts)

 * 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 . Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Clerk notes (General facts)

 * Noting that I have moved '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)

Statement by Novem Linguae (General facts)
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)
 * 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)

Statement by Galobtter (General facts)
Does ArbCom know the identities of any of the banned editor(s) involved here? Galobtter (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes @Galobtter. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, looking at one of the discussions mentioned, Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians, mentions that 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)
 * 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)

Statement by Callitropsis (General facts)
It seems to me that 's blocks of and  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, 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🌲&#91; formerly SamX · talk · contribs&#93; 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


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

Statement by Tamzin (General facts)
Should 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  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 03:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It was not part of the evidence I have seen -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice_regent (General facts)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas&oldid=1193267744#Question_2:_Which_of_these_two_pargraphs_should_appear_in_the_lead? This RfC] reminded me of what I said here at WP:ARBIRP. Within a few hours proposing an RfC,, , ,  and  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, 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 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.VR talk 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * and, 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)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS (General facts)
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


 * Homerethegreat added a POV tag to an article with no explanation 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."  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."


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


 * Another instance of potential tag teaming with Homerethegreat here, 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. " IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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, was begun (here ) 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)

Statement by Aquillion (General facts)
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.
 * User:טבעת-זרם / TaBaZzz.

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)

Statement by Marokwitz (general facts)

 * 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)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

Statement by Agmonsnir (General facts)

 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Statement by Nableezy (General facts)
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. Following an email request to vote no, the move request (which included, later blocked as a sock of AndresHerutJaim and 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)
 * 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)

Statement by EytanMelech (General facts)
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)

Statement by Coretheapple (general facts)
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)


 * 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)
 * Arbcom has a policy mandate, . 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) ). 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Do those same privacy considerations prevent you from showing the evidence to the affected parties? Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well that's grossly unfair. especially since these are unusually tough penalties. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zanahary (General facts)
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. and, please either accuse me of proxy voting or refrain from tagging me. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Oleg Yunakov (General facts)

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

Statement by Objective3000 (General facts)
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)


 * 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)

Statement by Legoktm (General facts)
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)


 * @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)
 * @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)

Statement by BilledMammal (General facts)
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)

Statement by Sean.hoyland (General facts)
Given that, in one case, "at least 190 editors" received emails according to KevinL at 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Wh15tL3D09N (General facts)
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 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)

Statement by Thebiguglyalien (General facts)
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)

Statement by My very best wishes (General facts)
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)


 * We are 99% sure Icewhiz is not involved in the ongoing disruption -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Statement by Philipnelson99 (General facts)
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Statement by The Wordsmith (General facts)
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 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)


 * Also noting here that I've just noticed that 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)

Statement by Levivich (General facts)
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 Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians and Articles for deletion/Nakba denial, and arguably 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 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 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)

Statement by Nsk92 (General facts)
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)

Statement by {other-editor} (General facts)
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.

Dovidroth
2) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that 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.


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Per GeneralNotability. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose:
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Abstain:
 * Per my comments supporting the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dovidroth topic ban
2.1) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * 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)
 * Changing to a standard support of this proposal per my comment in the ban proposal section. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Second choice. 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Equal choice per 's 21:46, 16 January 2024 message below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * second choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Equal choice. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * 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. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions (Dovidroth)

 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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 . Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Statement by Dovidroth (Dovidroth)
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 WikiProject Israel, 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)

Statement by Philipnelson99 (Dovidroth)
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)

Statement by starship.paint (Dovidroth)
In the interests of transparency and fairness, could 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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)


 * - you made a mistake in your vote for at above, you mentioned EytanMelech instead.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 10:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman (Dovidroth)
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Taking Out The Trash (Dovidroth)
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)

Statement by Coretheapple (Dovidroth)
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.

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 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Nableezy (Dovidroth)
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)

Statement by DanCherek (Dovidroth)
(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 covered, broadly construed, then no problem. DanCherek (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Animal Lover 666 (Dovidroth)
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.

Statement by Marokwitz (Dovidroth)
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)

Statement by Galobtter (Dovidroth)
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)

Statement by {other-editor} (Dovidroth)
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.

EytanMelech
3) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, he is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Per GeneralNotability. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GN says it; I also find this more clearcut. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per my reasoning on the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * 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. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

EytanMelech topic ban
3.1) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * 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)
 * Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Second choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Second chouce --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * 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. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions (EytanMelech)

 * 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)
 * I agree that at the moment, the evidence provided for this specific motion is insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, my concern has been resolved – I'll have a look again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (20:00, 6 Jan) and (15:02, 5 Jan), thank you very much., 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Statement by EytanMelech (EytanMelech)
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 via my talk page &#91;permanent section links: 1, 2&#93; 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))

Cheers

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

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)


 * &#91;in response to Nableezy below&#93; 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)
 * &#91;in response to Aoidh above&#93; 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)

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)
 * (response to ToBeFree in questioning section; not sure how the formatting works)
 * I assume you are aware of the 15 discussions linked in the first motion above at ? 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)
 * 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)

Statement by Nableezy (EytanMelech)
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)
 * 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 (diff) to send you the original emails if they might be amenable to doing so.  nableezy  -  01:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pincrete (EytanMelech)

 * 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)

Statement by Coretheapple (EytanMelech)
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)

Statement by Taking Out The Trash (EytanMelech)
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)

Statement by Marokwitz (EytanMelech)

 * 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)

Statement by {other-editor} (EytanMelech)
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.

Homerethegreat
4) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that 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.


 * Support:


 * Oppose:
 * Per my explanation in the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Barkeep49's assessment regarding Homerethegreat. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Evidence is not clear and convincing to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence is not definitive enough in my view to warrant a total ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Barkeep49 below in the TBAN motion. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Barkeep49 in the TBAN motion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * 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. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Homerethegreat topic ban
4.1) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


 * Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Barkeep says it exactly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Barkeep49. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose:
 * 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)


 * Abstain:
 * Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussions (Homerethegreat)

 * 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Homerethegreat (Homerethegreat)
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)


 * 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)
 * @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? <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Statement by Tamzin
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  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS
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)

Statement by Taking Out The Trash (Homerethegreat)
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)

Statement by Marokwitz (Homerethegreat)
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. In casting my vote in this case I have Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)

Statement by {other-editor} (Homerethegreat)
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.

Amending the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee
Original discussion

Motion: appeals of CheckUser blocks generally not heard
Enacted - Maxim (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) I was uncomfortable with this at first, as the Arbitration Committee still needs to be a private place where editors can go to in case of actual checkuser abuse, instead of going straight to the Ombuds Commission. However, contrary to oversight blocks, checkuser blocks can usually be reasonably appealed on-wiki and this motion does leave a door open to "compelling reasons" against the default. Also, the Arbitration Committee can still (and must still) review checkuser activity and complaints about functionary tool misuse – it just wouldn't do so directly in response to every appeal by a blocked user anymore. This is similar to how the blocking policy  recommends a discussion at WP:AN  instead of requiring an AN discussion for every unblock request at CAT:RFU. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) I am very pleased to see these motions posted, and thank Maxim for their work on this. This version is strongly my first choice. I think it should require more than an unsuccessful appeal to clearly open the path to an ArbCom appeal - to do otherwise would I feel limit the impact of the change, as someone could make one trivial unsuccessful on-wiki appeal and then legitimately feel they can make an appeal to ArbCom, which is only a slight change to the status quo. Requiring disagreement between checkusers as to the nature of the evidence (or some other compelling reason to hear a private appeal) allows us to redirect these cases back to the on-wiki processes.  firefly  ( t · c ) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my comments in the discussion section. Maxim (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) This change is beneficial, not least of all because if checkusers can review checkuser blocks, that will streamline and simplify the review instead of having it done by committee for each request. This change allows for situations where ArbCom should review, but is not necessarily the first step in that process. - Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Primefac (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) This strikes the right balance for me. It doesn't make sense for 15 editors to hear every CU block appeal, and under our current procedures (which have been streamlined in recent years!) all but the most trivial appeal generates a minimum of six emails—that's well over 1,000 emails a year and a significant chunk of the arb workload but most of these appeals are clear cut and don't need 15 pairs of eyes on them. Any checkuser can review the evidence a CU block is based on, and this leaves the door open for edge cases, such as where there is additional evidence that can't be discussed in public or (rarely) where there might be misuse or abuse. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) Appeals should be directed to where the evidence is held. This advances that presumption. Cabayi (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) I've oscillated between having this as my second choice and outright opposition, but ultimately, it doesn't sit right with me. The Arbitration Committee is responsible for supervising the use of CheckUser and Oversight and, by extension, their operators. I deeply appreciate the time spent by my colleagues on and off the Committee to provide feedback on this measure – I sympathise with much of it – but this move to decrease our workload risks limiting the avenue for appeals to us too much. As the Committee acts as a collective instead of as individuals (needing greater deliberation to act, rightly or wrongly), its ability to carry out independent review is simply stronger. I favour the option below instead. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Abstain:

Motion: ArbCom is no longer a first-resort appeals mechanism for CheckUser blocks
Support:
 * 1) Second choice to "1)", "appeals of CheckUser blocks generally not heard". &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice to the first motion above. While this is certainly an improvement over the current process, it also raises some concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) See my vote above. I'm aware that this is probably not going to pass, but I believe that the retention of the Committee as a body to provide independent review is an important principle. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) While this approach would be an improvement over the present, I prefer motion 1 instead, per my comments in the discussion section. Maxim (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) The bar for review is far too low here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

 * I'm proposing these two motions, following internal committee discussions and consultations with the functionaries, to limit the scope of appeals that ArbCom considers. In short (I promise this is a condensed version), ArbCom presently will hear appeals of CheckUser blocks, although they are appealable at talk page or over UTRS. In practice, this means that ArbCom considers about 50 appeals per quarter; of these, roughly 40 are of CU blocks (the remainder generally being out-of-scope appeals). Most of these appeals are denied, and those that are accepted will tend to be on last-chance/standard offer basis. This practice means that a significant portion of Committee emails and time is devoted to hearing such appeals, despite the fact that in principle such appeals do not necessarily need Committee intervention (i.e. they can be, and in many cases are, equally handled at talkpages and UTRS). The current practice is notably different from most, if not all other Committee functions, which can only be reasonable handled by the Committee. I'm not immediately entering a vote, pending comments, but I am so far strongly learning towards the first motion ("generally not heard"), because I don't see the usefulness of ArbCom as last-resort appeal mechanism for otherwise ordinary CU blocks. Since the BASC disbanding, we don't act as a last-resort appeals mechanism, and a carve-out specifically for CU blocks seems inconsistent and unnecessary. Maxim (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd love it if we could add the idea of somewhere to motion 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added in the line, and hopefully it's not too clunky. Maxim (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to decide between the two myself. Could you explain why the first one is your preference as I'd have kind of expected it to be a rationale for somebode for whom the second motion is their first choice? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. I fear that the second motion ("1.1") is of little effect: Making an unsuccessful on-wiki appeal takes five seconds of pasting  onto your talk page, and if something similar has ever happened during the current block, even if that was two years ago, then we're a valid venue of appealing and can't really complain about the user coming to us with a trivial matter that could easily be discussed on-wiki. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked both motions with 's permission to clarify the intent - a block being a CheckUser or Oversight block does not require the use of a specific template, simply a clear an unambiguous statement that the block falls into one of those categories. For instance, UPE blocks based on private evidence submitted to paid-en@ are frequently marked as "Checkuser block based on ticket:12345" without one of the specific templates. I don't think this is ever seriously disputed, but it's worth being clear on the point. I've also tweaked the capitalisation of  to align with what I believe to still be current style practice.  firefly  ( t · c ) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that per our guidance something needs CU data to be a CU block. If it's just offwiki info it should be, for instance, a paid editing block with a link to a ticket rather than a CU block, per se. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a good point - those would almost certainly fall under clause (a) "unsuitable for public discussion" anyway, but it is worth bearing in mind here. I don't think any of my wording changes muddies that water, but please do edit if you feel otherwise :) firefly  ( t · c ) 19:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Community discussion
For convenience, here is a side-by-side diff of the two versions of the proposed motion. It's broken up into sections to try to align analogous portions.

isaacl (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) updated 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just noting that since this diff was posted I have tweaked the motion text slightly - the change is not substantive, merely clarifying that specific templates are not needed for a block to be "marked as a CU/OS block" for the purposes of the motions. The core differences shown here remain accurate. firefly  ( t · c ) 19:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the diff, with the minor change of using spaces instead of underscores in the wikilinks, in order to improve the layout of the side-by-side diff. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Isaacl, that diff is very helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure the "disagreement between CUs" language is necessary. How often does that happen? Why do we need policy for it? What do we do currently when we disagree? How often are these disagreements visible to the blocked users? I've been doing this stuff for a while, and I've never found myself having to do anything more than having an email conversation with the other CU. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that such a clause would be very rarely used—it's there in case there is a difficult or unusual situation. To elaborate, I went through our appeals records for 2022 and 2023 (these are the most thorough years). I counted two instances, each year, where ArbCom overturned a block on the grounds of the block being faulty, although there is a bit of a gradient between "faulty block" and "last chance unblock". The middle ground of this gradient is "I wouldn't have felt have confident blocking, but I don't feel confident enough to unblock", and when a committee starts voting, the outcome may be similar to that of a coin flip (and I couldn't tell you if that's a bug or feature). One particular appeal, which was received in 2020 and was a particularly contentious case internally, is something inspired this "disagreement between CUs" clause. Keep in mind that the dynamic between two CUs, versus one CU and ArbCom is not going to be same. There is a power imbalance: instead of two individuals discussing, it's an individual and a committee which can, in theory, vote in whatever way it wants. It seems important to highlight that ArbCom will explicitly be a venue to deal with the particularly difficult cases; the only other viable alternatives for such a discussion, should it need to happen, would be checkuser-l or the CheckUser wiki, and those seem much less suitable to adjudicate or help adjudicate an appeal in comparison to arbcom-en. Maxim (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As a general case, isn't ArbCom the proper place for all irreconcilable differences between admins regarding blocks? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Block reviews go to AN. What would end up at ArbCom would have to involve something closer to misconduct than to differences of opinion. Maxim (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As Maxim notes, I think the standard for what ArbCom would still hear fall short of "irreconcilable differences" instead just being "differences" which normally would go to a community forum. But also the fact that we have data that can't be talked about directly onwiki does mean that reviews are going to take a different shape than normal blocks. That said I had said at the start of this effort that your feedback was going to be important to me @Jpgordon given the work you already do around unblocks. So if you think that ArbCom won't need much involvement, that's important feedback but doesn't say to me the motions need changing. Just sets expectations that ArbCom's involvement will truly get lessened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just nitpicking, perhaps -- my feeling for policy language is finding the point of "necessary and sufficient", probably veering toward an excessive conciseness. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024
I filed an article tonight and a user profile Within ten minutes I had three people attacking me The first told me that my user profile was not appropriate. I had written two paragraphs about my professional background as a computer scientist. The other two told me that my submitted article was a conflict of interest. I read the conflict of interest page and it does not meet that. I had written the article about an invention I had made at IBM that is documented and used in text analytics and machine learning as a women in technology. I cited articles. I also wrote about another accomplishment as a women in technology. They said that it was a conflict of interest and just my resume'. There was some very rude language and unprofessional language used, not constructive and disrespectful. Within ten minutes of submitting my article I had three hostile reviews and a rejection. Dawndarasms (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dawndarasms: Hi there! It's so common for people to come to Wikipedia to write about themselves or their own companies that sometimes editors can be curt in their responses.  It's not obvious at all that Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - has lots of policies and guidelines around content.  Some of them include:
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide explains that writing about yourself is considered a "conflict of interest"
 * Autobiography discusses how autobiographies are strongly discouraged.
 * User pages discusses what can (and cannot) appear on a user page
 * Help:Your first article has lots of information on how to create a draft article
 * I'm sorry you had a bad experience, and hope this information will help your understanding about Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Dawndarasms came onto IRC fuming at us and throwing out accusations of people making attacks against her, sending her aggressive emails, etc. We told her we cannot help her because the help she's seeking is out of scope as (1) conduct-related and (2) attempting to litigate an Arbitration. They were also fishing for specific phrases that they could use to support their position. I can provide the relevant log information via email to the Arbitration Committee. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hold on to them for now, Jeske, but if things really kick off they might be useful. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I'd been on IRC, but I was on yesterday when Dawndarasms was there (although I don't know how effective I was). Checking out her draft and user contributions led me here, so I took the opportunity to write a longer response than I could on IRC.  Maybe she visited IRC more than once?   How many thousands of people have this same experience?  I wish I could think of some way to better educate people before they spend time creating a "profile" that gets declined/rejected/deleted. GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the reviewers have time, they have educational opportunities via comments and the decline message. Unfortunately, by the time I see such all I can do is message them with User:deepfriedokra/del 😢 &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, the FirstArticle and Autbio welcome templates are available, though sometimes unused. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell
I request applying arbitration remedies onto talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell as part of the contentious Palestine-Israel articles. I am already seeing some bad-faith activities in the article talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Publicizing the ArbCom case
Dear arbitrators and clerks. Because ArbCom cases may have Wikipedia wide implications and to attract editors knowledgeable in the respective topic areas related to this arbitration request, I have publicized it in directly related talk pages., , My intention is to involve the community at large of related policy pages in order to attract uninvolved editors quality knowledge in said related areas. Also, editors who watch those pages may have an interest in this case related to the topic they regularly watch. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Knowledgeable how? If you mean as witnesses, they've likely already said their piece. If you mean as subject-matter experts, ArbCom explicitly does not adjudicate content disputes. If you mean as arguing that ArbCom should legislate from the bench, that is explicitly out of their remit. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Guide to arbitration word limit proposal
I was trying to post to the talk page of the Guide to Arbitration but it redirects here. I don't know if I should post this proposal here or elsewhere, because the relevant talk page redirects here.

After posting for the first time an arbitration request I realized that some modification is probably in order to the guidance (under Responding to requests) that states, I think there should be a separation between the default word limit for the initial statement and a word limit for responses to other editors, in proportion to the number of editors making comments about the case. Said comments may include sometimes inaccuracies, misinterpretations, lack of proper context, and accusations, which should be able to be addressed by the editor at hand.

As it is, one needs to make a request to the clerks, who may not be available for several hours, hours that the editor could have used to respond to the comments but instead has to wait for even a determination to approve or deny the request. If the request is denied, accusations or inaccuracies that are made in comments by other editors go unaddressed and may be taken as factual when it may not be the case. This situation is certainly not good. It is hard to plan how to use 500 words if one doesn't even know how many responses one is going to need to make. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be rebutting everything someone says contra your position anyway. The word limits are in place for good reason; any rebuttals could be given in the evidence phase if a case is accepted and a case request should ideally be concise in the first place. The KISS principle applies here. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 07:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 500 word limit is there exactly to prevent what you want to do, ie. reply to absolutely everyone. It functions well and has functioned well for many years. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. Others can write anything they want about an editor, even if it is false, inaccurate, lacks context, misinterpreted, malicious, for the arbitrators to admit as part of the process, without the editor at hand being able to provide a refutation or a correction. I have my doubts about the fairness or appropriateness of such a system that provides more value to random word limits for expediency than to apparently proper procedure. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's absolutely necessary because you have 100% unquestionable, completely unequivocal evidence that the accusations being made have no basis whatsoever and have run out of word count to present it, you can ask the clerks for more space... but remember, an Arbitration request is specifically not the place to hash out every accusation and counter-accusation; that's for the case itself. If someone is making like five different points as to why you did something wrong, and you feel the need to reply to every single one of those points individually because they're each at-a-glance convincing enough that the arbitrators will likely otherwise choose to accept... then, sorry, they probably do need to accept, because hashing out all those claims and counter-claims is going to require its own case. If you can dismiss the entire case against you in one sentence then you don't need 500 words for it; and if someone is just glaringly making unfounded insinuations or the like, the arbs will see that without you needing to point it out, they're all highly-experienced editors. In the request phase, all the arbs are really looking for are basically "are accusations being made that at least pass a basic sniff test and are serious enough to require our attention" and "is this beyond the community's ability to solve." Massive point-by-point rebuttals aren't going to help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the first time Im around in these proceedings so Im unsure how nuances work. In other situations I would say there is a purpose for this or for that. But considering the current case and how many arbitrators are responding, my initial concerns during the blocking process are simply reinforced and as such I'm not sure if nuances are really just nuances or defects in the design. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to arbitrators
I respectfully request the arbitrators to allow me to respond to their decline statements before closing the case. Sincerely, -- Thinker78  (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per point two of, 24 hours need to elapse after net four or a majority are reached before a request can be actioned. As neither of those conditions have been met, you still have time to make replies, though I will note that you have hit your 500 word limit and will need to request an extension. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I made my request and more than 2 days later I haven't received an answer. I don't know if any clerks are active editors? I mean I know we all are volunteers but still I didn't know there was so much dysfunction at the top level of the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Question to arbitrators
My case was declined. But based on statements by arbitrators Aoidh, I don't think the block appeals are sufficient attempt at prior dispute resolution, Z1720, this should go through a community review, User:Barkeep49, This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI, User:Firefly, On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others, and the lack of clarity by User:Moneytrees and User:CaptainEek regarding the block, I opened the case in a lower instance, Administrative action review.

I am being accused of forum shopping but that's not the case. Administrators reportedly are held to high standards of conduct but there has been no definitive determination as to whether the block by ScottishFinnishRadish against me was legitimate or arbitrary. I provided ample evidence regarding arbitrariness. I may have made a procedural mistake in bringing the case to ArbCom but I urge that an objective determination regarding the block by ScottishFinnishRadish is allowed to proceed in a lower instance at this time, for its proper analysis. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I stand by my full comments Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Righting Small Wrongs
Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Barkeep49 - I am about to move it into project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Motion: Sri Lanka contentious topic designation

 * Original discussion

Enacted – firefly  ( t · c ) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) As proposer and per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, this is needed. We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) and lets not do the dummy case thing again --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Primefac (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6)  firefly  ( t · c ) 22:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Maxim (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Arbitrator Discussion (motion)

Conduct in deletion-related editing amendment request
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. (link), (link), and  (link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while  (link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * And if a topic ban would not fly, could a "this-many-per-day" restriction be a possibility? BOZ (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I never received a reply to my query about whether the redirects were causing further issues, which is why I made the statement you link to above. If you think that TPH should be restricted from BLAR, you should start a discussion in the usual places. Personally speaking, however, nothing in your statement indicated that the "disruptive" clauses of WP:ATD-R or WP:BLAR have been met, and in fact I find the response in the thread you referenced in your statement to be an indication that TPH isn't going to be disruptive if their redirects are reverted. You might not like that it is being done, but I am not seeing the same behavioural and conduct issues in their actions that led to the original topic bans. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The disruptive editing does not take place after the redirects are reverted. The disruptive editing takes place when TenPoundHammer continues to redirects articles on notable topics even after being asked to stop. This violates Fait accompli. Does "you should start a discussion in the usual places" include Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Or did the Arbitration Committee already decide against imposing a BLAR topic ban request in the recently closed amendment request? Cunard (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for the Committee, but I personally do not see this as an issue requiring us to weigh in at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that you do not view TenPoundHammer's BLARs as problematic, but I thank you for responding to my questions. I pinged several arbitrators who mentioned concerns about the BLARs when opposing the relaxing of the topic ban. I would like to hear their perspectives regarding whether filing a separate amendment request would be considered a duplicate of the recently declined amendment request. It would answer why arbitrators did not propose a BLAR topic ban there (were the BLARs not considered problematic enough, was a topic ban amendment request not the right venue for proposing expanding the sanctions, or were there other reasons). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for a reply from three of the arbitrators I pinged above. I am also pinging, a drafting arbitrator for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing, who suggested that the motion should include a ban on proposed deletions before I presented the evidence about the redirects. Barkeep49, would filing a separate amendment request about the BLARs be considered a duplicate of this declined amendment request? Cunard (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should be a separate amendment, or perhaps a discussion first at AN/I. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to give you mixed feedback here. I had not looked deeply into the evidence you presented at the ARCA as I had not voted and was not planning to vote for the motion being considered. I had presumed that it might be the kinds of "deeply researched" sources you often present at AfD. I have now looked at the sources and they're definitely not that but are instead are easily findable quality reliable sources. So I am personally troubled and would consider further sanctions/restrictions if asked at ARCA. However, I can't help but wonder based on the feedback of above that other arbs who were paying more close attention don't see it as much of a problem as I do. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the evidence. This gives me an indication that a topic ban amendment request would not be a duplicate. I've posted a new amendment request. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick question
Hoping to avoid a whole thing, and maybe this has been addressed already. WP:CTOP says there has to be a clear consensus (bolding in original) to overturn a CTOP sanction, but Arbitration Committee/Procedures says "clear and substantial". Is a bolded clear substantial? Has the threshold changed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe that the standard was deliberately changed from "clear and substantial" to "clear" when Discretionary Sanctions became Contentious Topics. If so, then that would mean the procedures page is simply out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also suspect this is the case. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Might this apply more broadly than to contentious topics? Perhaps, in that case, the clear and substantial requirement applies to non-CT enforcement? Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So it would be clear and substantial to overturn a sanction based on an Arbcom placed iban, tban, or 1rr, but simply clear for a regular CTOP sanction? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be my understanding. Of course, this may not be the intended meaning and in this case I think the arbs should weigh in on whether the language should be updated for non-CTOP based enforcement actions. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

ARCA template
I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The Arbitration clarification request template tells you to remove certain lines if the request does not concern a specific case, but if you don't give a title paramater, it puts code in the section header, and if you create a title but remove the other two parameters, it auto-generates them anyway, meaning you have to remove them again after posting, as I just did. Seems like this could use some tweaking to make it more user-friendly. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll put this on my list of things to look at. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why 500 edits to edit the talk page?
When was it decided that the number of edits needed to edit the talk page should be the same as to edit the article? It doesn't make any sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit 181.98.62.149 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the log. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The logs don't provide an answer to the question. Where is the discussion where the decision was reached to only allow extended confirmed users to participate on talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * is where, and that is an Arbitration motion, not an AE thread. (Despite what the log says, I can't find anywhere the protection was discussed on AE in the timeframe provided; it was likely done ad hoc as a discretionary sanction.) It should be noted that motion only became a thing because the talk page was practically unusable. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.

In the article about Glasgow Rangers Football Club, the "Founded" date is stated to be March 1872.

This should say June 2012 to reflect the reformation of the phoenix club in 2012 when the original club were liquidated.

Similar articles such as Airdrieonians FC and Gretna FC show this date as being the date the new club was founded after a company liquidation occurred.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008

The change of name in Airdrieonians is not sufficient enough to state a new club was founded as this is evidenced by the Manchester United article where a name change from Newton Heath is stated at the foundation section, but the "Founded" date is still said to be 1878.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.

Therefore, the changing of a name is not regarded as being a foundation of a club with Man United, so therefore wouldn't be for Airdrieonians.

This therefore shows the 2002 date for Airdrieonians is not related to any name changes, but is in fact based upon Liquidation of the old company which owned the original Airdrieonians FC.

Therefore, as that is the case, for consistency, the Rangers FC article "Founded" date should say 2012, as that is when one company liquidated and a phoenix club was created which then had to apply for a new membership to the Scottish football pyramid system.

I have raised this in the "Talk" section, however, I feel the issue is dismissed as Rangers are a much more popular club than Airdrieonians and Gretna and the decisions are made differently to appease a larger fans base. I also believe the people deciding what is "correct" are likely to be Rangers supporters who wish to pretend liquidation of the old company didn't happen.

Please resolve this inconsistency to show a similar treatment for Rangers foundation date to clubs in a similar position like Airdrieonians and Gretna. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you'd really like to begin an arbitration case, you can do so here, but I think you would have better luck following the suggestions for dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Arbitration explicitly is for conduct matters (i.e. user behaviour), not content matters such as what you're complaining about. Arbitration will not touch content disputes, and regularly remands those to the community. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding (or thirding) the comment that this page is the wrong page to raise this issue. Perhaps there is a relevant wikiproject whose members might be able to provide input? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like this has been asked and answered on the talk page of the article, and is not a matter for ArbCom. However, what may be related to the arbitration process is the Troubles restriction tag on the talk page (which also includes a 1RR restriction). It did some digging and it appears to have been added by back in 2012 (diff), along with Celtic F.C. (diff). Neither of these applications ever appear to have been recorded at WP:AELOG, and I can't see any connection from either of these articles to The Troubles. Should these tags be removed? –  bradv  20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Rangers/Celtic issue is a Catholic/Protestant issue, not an Irish/Troubles issue. The tags should probably be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for word-limit extension.
Per Barkeeps comment here,, and his later question, which requires a response, I'm going to need a word-limit extension if I am to reply. I'm currently at just under 500 words I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @AndyTheGrump 250 more words granted. If you need more beyond that please let us know. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

What's going on with the ArbCom proceedings template?
It seems to have a non-existent and broken case request. W ADroughtOfVowels P 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you mean "Rio Grande 223" then the initiator (DTParker1000) cocked up the section heading when making the filing, but AirshipJungleman29 fixed that and the links in T:ACOT now work correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Signing comments
Given that everybody is constrained to edit a section titled "Statement by (username)", which nobody else is allowed to edit, I'm unconvinced that making a fuss about signatures is justified. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh, I wanna see the day without looking through the history. And now they know, for future. They plural — why do you ping just the one user? Also, who cares? El_C 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist
Hasn't this case request been at 6 declines from among 10 active arbs for more than 24 hours? Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing Declined Case Request
There appears to be a missing entry in the list of declined cases in the first quarter of 2024. DTParker2000 filed a request for arbitration about Rio Grande 223 on 19 March 2024 that was declined on 20 March 2024, but it isn't listed in the list of cases. (So, yes, they are making the same frivolous request again three months later.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that the second Rio Grande 223 is now listed in the list of declined ArbCom cases. The first Rio Grande 223 is still not listed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added this to the declined cases list. Thanks for raising it. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)