Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 06:46, 30 January 2024 (→‎Remind, warn, admonish: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles   29 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Motions: PIA Canvassing 21 January 2024
Remind, warn, admonish 30 January 2024

Motions

Motions: PIA Canvassing

Six motions enacted, see ACN announcement. firefly ( t · c ) 19:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. While I am waiting to hear from the specific editors named below and from the community at large about this issue, I am absolutely ready to vote on this motion as I find the evidence of what it says incontrovertibly true and think the request of the Wikimedia Foundation to be a good one. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is well-supported by the evidence that the Arbitration Committee has received. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We do indeed have this evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The evidence for this is unambiguous. Even if no one actually acted on the canvassing, it was desperately attempted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is plainly well-supported by the evidence the Committee received. firefly ( t · c ) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While additional comments and evidence are welcome, these are indeed the facts as we have them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cabayi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Maxim (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. We indeed received this. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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 arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been mulling this over for a few days and I'm just not ready to support site bans at this point. I have little trouble believing that the allegations are true—they have been public for long enough now and I've seen no other credible explanation for how these editors made almost exactly (in some cases word for word) the edits that were requested the edits the canvasser requested. But I feel that if the canvassing was on-wiki and this was AE, we wouldn't be considering site bans for the canvassed editors. I'd happily support ARBPIA topic bans, which I feel would adequately address the problem and would be the likely outcome at AE, without prejudice to revisiting site bans if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd personally be much more open to a reduced sanction (e.g. an ARBPIA TBAN) if the users acknowledged fault convincingly, cooperated by e.g. giving more information about what discussions they were canvassed to (including any discussions not listed above), and explaining that they understand what went wrong here and what they should have instead done. But when they're disputing the basic facts, I think a sitewide block (with the opportunity for an immediate appeal, as we provide in the proposed motions) is more appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the fact that this isn't on wiki has to have a material impact on the sanction. And further AE wouldn't be considering a site ban, because (and this was something I fought hard to not change in the transition from DS to CT) the ability to ban/block indefinitely under our name is limited to the committee itself. So we have conduct that is harder to detect - and that for me means that the remedy needs to be stronger to act as more a deterrent - coupled with, as Kevin points out, the complete lack of remorse or accountability. I've been looking for a way to not end up supporting the site bans myself, but so far I haven't found it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes (General facts)

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Yes @Galobtter. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm wondering why we are not told who's responsible? (This might help the community figure out what other edits are involved and what else needs to be done to address the problem?) Galobtter (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would it help the community @Galobtter? I think i"m in a minority on the committee on this issue, but I genuinely don't understand how that piece of information helps non-CU editors identify this disruption more than the information we've already provided. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at one of the discussions mentioned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians, L235 mentions that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim is involved. I think it'd be useful to know that any discussions that future socks of that editor participate in should be scrutinized for canvassing? I'm not necessarily in favor of transparency for the sake of it but I can see genuine utility here. Galobtter (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that editor didn't actually edit that AfD? I mean it's possible that the editors involved are really good about keeping any onwiki activity separated from their offwiki canvassing activity, in which case maybe it is not so useful, but that isn't entirely clear to me. Galobtter (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callitropsis (General facts)

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

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

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

Statement by Tamzin (General facts)

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

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

Statement by Vice_regent (General facts)

This RfC reminded me of what I said here at WP:ARBIRP. Within a few hours Marokwitz proposing an RfC, Homerethegreat, Zanahary, Oleg_Yunakov, Dovidroth and Agmonsnir all quickly voted, none bothering to address any of the sourcing or neutrality issues I had raised (I'm not saying they should have agreed with me, but they simply ignored my comment). In the case of WP:ARBIRP, it was later determined[1], 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[2] 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[3].VR talk 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [4]
  • Homerethegreat added a POV tag to an article with no explanation [5] 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." [6] 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." [7]
  • Homerethegreat removed significant content from the lead of an article. [8] I restored it and started a discussion on the talk page. Agmonsnir then reverted my restoration without discussion. [9]
  • Another instance of potential tag teaming with Homerethegreat here [10], where significant content was removed with edit summary "I think it’s best to discuss changes in Talk first. Homerethegreat’s version was stable for quite some time and therefore we should start from there." Content removed included: "Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine.[1]" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It seems like the whitewashing edit war on Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) involving Homerethegreat and Dovidroth, which I brought up here [11], was begun (here [12]) by Joemb1977, a now blocked user with a notice on their userpage reading "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim"

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

References

  1. ^ Mazzetti, Mark; Bergman, Ronen (2023-12-10). "'Buying Quiet': Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-12-14.

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:

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

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)[reply]
@Marokwitz, there is evidence showing proxy edits made and that canvassing occurred. When I said that, the key word is "actually", as in "even if there is some odd explanation for the proxy edits, the canvassing occurred", although I realize that may have been lost on some. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees, thank you for your reply. Could the nature of this evidence be revealed to the people who are accused, in private, to allow them to explain their actions and perhaps provide contrary evidence? (If this was not done yet)? Marokwitz (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sympathetic to "just because someone received an email and participated doesn't mean they were canvassed". In fact there are other editors who received and an email and who participated but who aren't named here. As for @Nableezy, their involvement with private evidence happened before any topic ban. We are discussing their further involvement in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, thank you for your reply. May I ask, when you say below "we obviously couldn't show the parties the emails we've received," does this mean that ARBCOM plans to provide no further details to the accused parties on the nature of the evidence against them? Marokwitz (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accused already know what discussions concern us so they can provide information/conext/rebuttal. As I stated in my last reply to you the problems are the (very public) onwiki actions not the emails themselves. Beyond that the committee is discussing whether more can be shared. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
And just to make it clear, I do not know any of the editors mentioned here and were not emailed by them etc.... I am recently watching some pages and new areas of interest, and what I understand from this discussion is that in some of them there are edit wars that are related to toxic history between some editors. I am not a part of it. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to IOHANNVSVERVS I find it hard to understand the "suspicions" related to me. I am used to believe in good faith on Wikipedia, and now these "suspicions" look very suspicious to me. Anyway, my editing on Wiki is always legitimate. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make it clear, I do not know any of the editors mentioned here and were not emailed by them etc.... I am recently watching some pages and new areas of interest, and what I understand from this discussion is that in some of them there are edit wars that are related to toxic history between some editors. I am not a part of it. Agmonsnir (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I notice that the targets of this case want the evidence disclosed and that Nableezy does too. That makes it unanimous. I also think that in fairness, Arbcom should allow other topic-banend editors to comment here. It would seem bizarre indeed if only one topic-banned editor is allowed to comment here, while the rest are not. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom has a policy mandate, To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;. Were ArbCom not to protect the encyclopedia from concerted efforts at disruption we would not be doing the work that the community has trusted us to do because if we're not doing it, no one is even attempting to stop these concerted efforts. If you don't want us to do that work, there is the community route for amending the policy.
As to the specifics, Nableezy has mentioned that their evidence is only about 1 of the 3 editors named here (From the motion being discussed here (emphasis added) The Arbitration Committee would like to thank the editors who reported canvassing.). So Nableezy isn't able to just give permission for the evidence to be disclosed. Further, even for the evidence Nableezy reported, not all of the personal information is Nableezy's, or one of the named parties here. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't allow Arbcom to forfeit other users' private information out of your desire to see everything. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the privacy issues here, but given the high visibility of this subject area I would suggest that more is at stake than the personal curiosity of one editor. Couldn't you disclose redacted evidence? Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't disagree that you understand the privacy issues and don't give it as much weight, instead giving weight to the high visibility of the topic area. Whereas I am obligated under policy to give more weight to the privacy and confidentiality considerations. As for disclosing redacted evidence if this were one or two emails we were talking about it might be practical. We have named 15 different discussions which have been targeted and it's not like those 15 discussions were targeted in a couple of emails. Producing redacted evidence would require hours of work from likely multiple arbitrators and I'm definitely not willing to volunteer to do that, preferring to spend my time thinking about the evidence, thinking about the feedback and comments, and truthfully replying to the comments and feedback. In fact I feel some obligation to respond because I am one of the people who really advocated for us to do this in public, rather than completely in private as policy would support and past practice would tell us to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do those same privacy considerations prevent you from showing the evidence to the affected parties? Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something because it seems like we obviously couldn't show the parties the emails we've received. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's grossly unfair. especially since these are unusually tough penalties. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nableezy and Vice_regent, please either accuse me of proxy voting or refrain from tagging me. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Oleg Yunakov: I've moved this to your own section; only arbitrators and clerks may comment in others' sections.
Please address your comments primarily to the Arbitration Committee rather than to other users. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Legoktm: There, currently, is not a good way to talk to volunteer developers sub rosa about the specific details. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: that's a big [citation needed] from me. There are multiple places in which volunteers and WMF staff collaborate that are private, including Phabricator tickets, IRC channels, mailing lists, etc. Legoktm (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_against_Palestinians, what is known and can be disclosed about the evidently somewhat flawed selection criteria AndresHerutJaim is using to target editors? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We are 99% sure Icewhiz is not involved in the ongoing disruption -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the part of this statement that made me go "I'm not so sure about that". The premise of the statement is that the LTA is a (to be somewhat simplistic because there are some nuances here) pro-Israel LTA (Icewhiz, AHJ, whomever) that is also trying to get editors favorably disposed to Israel sanctioned. The reverse doesn't make sense to me either - because if they don't get caught the CANASSing happens and the outcomes are potentially alteratered against that person's wishes. This is why the straightforward reading that this was a genuine attempt to alter the outcomes is the most likely. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am much more comfortable with an indefinite ban for these three editors from making edits related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I personally think an indefinite site-wide block is too punitive. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @nableezy, a topic ban should be on the Arab-Israeli conflict instead of just Palestine-Israeli conflict. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Barkeep49 that Arbs are currently discussing whether more of the data can be made public without compromising privacy. I would also encourage them to review the Findings of Fact at WP:EEML, where the contents and authenticity of the private evidence were summarized and described in a way that did not compromise confidentiality. I think most editors would be satisfied with a summary like that from a transparency standpoint. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial, and arguably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre (as one of many massacre articles that have become well-known).

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]


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 Dovidroth (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still support this but have changed this to be a standard choice and not secondary to the topic ban, given the response ArbCom has since received from Dovidroth explaining their edits. The evidence we have now is conclusive enough that I have no doubt that this occurred, yet Dovidroth's continued insistence that they did not make edits on behalf of a banned user when the evidence very clearly shows otherwise is problematic. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As I said about EytanMelech: the emails we have seen are quite conclusive that Dovidroth has made specific edits in specific ways at the direction of a banned user, the timing on the emails aligns very well with those edits, and the data we have also indicates that the emails we were forwarded here have not been tampered with. If they had come clean about what was going on I would have opted for the lesser sanction only, but proxying like this fundamentally undermines community trust. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per GeneralNotability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. In my opinion Dovidroth had the clearest evidence, I see this as basically a meatpuppetry case with offwiki evidence, and we've Arbcom blocked ~8 accounts for similar conduct in the last 365 days. I agree with the ban vs. Arbcom block distinction. It would make more sense for these to be our typical Arbcomblocks off of private evidence, but I also think that isn't a reason to not vote to ban-- this is still sanctionable conduct. I think it would have better to contact these users privately, vote on Arbcomblocks after their responses, and post the result at ACN. This would've been more convenient for all participants and would've provided the community with the same level of transparency. The evidence is a lot clearer than we are making it out to be and that this format has complicated things and underplayed our hand. Even though I found Dovidroths conduct the most suspicious, I wanted to get a response to some particular diffs before I voted. I did not find the response convincing, so I am unfortunately ending up here. I could possibly support an appeal with a topic ban from this area. Barkeep and Galobttr make good points. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Primefac, who put it better than I could. I am sympathetic to Maxim's reasoning below, but I think that the bar is cleared in this case. firefly ( t · c ) 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The bar to get banned by ArbCom (distinct from ArbCom blocks) has veered towards either persistent issues in multiple topic areas or egregiously poor conduct in one topic area (that somehow didn't get a community ban). I wouldn't call canvassing and making proxy edits for a banned editor "egregiously poor" such that it deserves a full site-ban; a topic ban is more proportionate. If there's a similar canvassing and proxying issue in a separate topic area, then a site ban would be appropriate, but I don't see such an event as particularly likely. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not impressed with Dovidroth's on-wiki behaviour nor their responses to this case. However, I believe that blocks and bans are meant to prevent disruption. After reviewing the evidence, I think the disruption only occurred in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so a ban for editing any part of the site would be inappropriate. If the problem spread to other areas of the site, or if a topic ban was imposed and they continued their behaviour, I would support something more overarching. However, I do not think a full ban is appropriate at this moment. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comments supporting the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth topic ban

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

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. First choice. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to a standard support of this proposal per my comment in the ban proposal section. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Making edits in a controversial topic area without using your own independent judgement and thinking in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is absolutely disruptive. I don't feel it rises to the level of an indefinite block, never mind an Arbcom ban, on its own. A topic ban is more proportionate to the level of misconduct here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I find myself very relcutantly here. We've now shared a number of edits with Dovidroth. In some of the situations his explanation make sense and wouldn't on their own concern me and may not even concern me even in context. However, his explanations for other edits don't make as much sense and have unexplained pieces that make it seem far less likely than the simpler explanation: he made the edits because a banned editor got him to make them. So far this makes him roughly as culpable as the other two editors, for whom I've supported topic bans. I also take seriously Maxim's comments about when a site ban is appropraite. The part I'm stuck on, is that Dovidroth has basically said the evidence against him is made-up/forged (it's not), was only able to supply 1 email of being canvassed, despite claiming to have multiple, and has otherwise attempted to forge dissension in the community this. The evidence that he canvassed is strong and the number of instances is beyond a one time (or two time or three time) occurrence. These aggravating factors against him aren't ultimately enough for me to move beyond a topic ban. That's because I'm ultimately inclined to try to be as preventative as possible rather than punative. If there was a reasonable lever for me to pull that would let me say that I find Dovidroth's conduct worse, both in canvassing and in responding to the allegations of it, worse than the other two I'd be pulling it. I certainly can't justify opposing the site ban and so will instead abstain there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Equal choice per Barkeep49's 21:46, 16 January 2024 message below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. second choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Equal choice. firefly ( t · c ) 18:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • The topic ban motion proposed above originally has the scope of "Palestine-Israeli conflict" but I have changed it to "the Arab-Israeli conflict" to match the scope of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. The same is true of the topic ban motions for the other two editors. - Aoidh (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dovidroth: I would still like us name specific edits we're concerned about. But nothing in that would stop you from providing us the canvassing emails you have received. I'd encourage you to forward them to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before voting on this and the other remedies, I want to see Dovidroth do what Barkeep has asked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Arbs who've indicated this is a 2nd choice, is there a reason you don't support a site-ban and topic ban? It the site ban were to pass, starting them off with a topic ban seems like an obvious first step that it could make a site unban discussion easier to not have to come to that consensus at that time. And if for some reason the topic ban isn't appropriate it's not really extra work to repeal that as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there was a "second choice" support for the siteban, supporting both felt like weakening my siteban vote. I haven't calculated thoroughly if this made sense, but now that there are no "second choice" siteban supports left, I can definitely support both. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I implore the Committee not to close the arbitration case until I have received this evidence that I requested privately and have been given a fair opportunity to defend myself. Dovidroth (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to receive any response on the nature of the accusations, about which I email Arbcom a couple days ago.
Nevertheless, since it has been implied that I should explain how I got to each of the articles/discussions, I will explain the following:
All of the RfC and AFDs are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine and other places. I check these regularly.
As for the discussions that were not RfC/AFD, I had previously edited United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Same goes for that I had previously edited Gaza Strip (among other edits). And I had edited use of human shields by Hamas just a couple days before my vote there.
I have been watching From the River to the Sea, as I was concerned about issues of bias and wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten worse.
As for Ahed Tamimi, Nableezy’s edit summary "remove garbage source and material without weight" caught my eye. The material was totally compliant with Wikipedia policies, so Nableezy, in that case, removed reliably sourced data while using combative language.
I think this covers all of the cases that I was involved with mentioned in the arbitration. If I'm missing something, please let me know and I will try to reconstruct how I got there. Dovidroth (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (Dovidroth)

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

This is not a simple request. See, without opining on the correctness of the advice there, WP:POSTEMAIL.
Separately, I would ask that you direct your statements to the arbitrators rather than to other users (e.g., suggest that we ask Dovidroth to send us, or the community, a full copy of the emails). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: - thank you for informing me. I struck the above and would suggest that ArbCom ask Dovidroth to send ArbCom a full copy of the emails. starship.paint (RUN) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whether or not this is Icewhiz, it sounds like somebody similar, to wit, an long term abuser. Perhaps they are amused by stirring the pot and don't really care who gets banned. We should ban any single purpose accounts that are involved, and warn any productive accounts that were snared. I don't think it's right to instantly and permanently ban good faith contributors, regardless of how naive or stupid they might have been. If you think that accounts were abandoned and then taken over by a bad actor (e.g. via credential stuffing), please say so for transparency. The enemy knows the system. Therefore, there's no benefit to being coy. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think topic bans for the relevant editors are fine. Wikipedia is big. These editors can improve many other articles. If they want to get back into I-P some day they can file an appeal. Jehochman Talk 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[23]

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

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

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

Statement by Nableezy (Dovidroth)

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

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 are covered, broadly construed, then no problem. DanCherek (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 EytanMelech (talk · contribs) 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.

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. - Aoidh (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The emails we have seen are quite conclusive that EytanMelech has made specific edits in specific ways at the direction of a banned user, the timing on the emails aligns very well with those edits, and the data we have also indicates that the emails we were forwarded here have not been tampered with. If they had come clean about what was going on I would have opted for the lesser sanction only, but proxying like this fundamentally undermines community trust. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per GeneralNotability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GN says it; I also find this more clearcut. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Proxying is bad, lying about it is worse. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my reasoning on the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EytanMelech topic ban

3.1) Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that EytanMelech 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.

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. First choice. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is definitive evidence of edits, including edit summaries, coming directly from emails. I am still considering whether there is enough here for me to support a site ban, but at the moment am leaning against that. What changed between now and my initial comment? Quite simply my ability to trust in the evidence that was submitted went up quite a bit. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second chouce --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Equal choice; if they do get unbanned a topic ban will still be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Essentially per my reasoning in the DovidRoth motions above. firefly ( t · c ) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Same reasoning as motion 2. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I agree that at the moment, the evidence provided for this specific motion is insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy: To me personally, this is not a technically accurate summary of the quality of the evidence provided by you. I'll explain my concern in an e-mail to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, my concern has been resolved – I'll have a look again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Marokwitz (20:00, 6 Jan) and EytanMelech (15:02, 5 Jan), thank you very much. EytanMelech, you write: Examples include requests for me to do reverts of edits or to change existing information in articles based on conflicting sources. You also write that you have ignored or replied to these in an "avoidant" way. If I understand correctly, you're saying that you never did what you have been asked for. Is this correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EytanMelech, as far as I understand, the e-mails you refer to made you feel compelled to do something instead of ignoring them. They made you feel as if you're required to do what you have been asked for, or to provide an excuse whenever you're not doing so. You have my sympathies for this, and my respect for admitting this. Now – if I see correctly – your situation is as follows: You have made proxy edits for a banned editor, you felt compelled to do so, and admitting this final piece of yet-unadmitted behavior requires you to say that most of your previous responses were just a wordy attempt to avoid admitting this. To me personally, that would however be the most valuable and reasonable thing you can do if the accusation is correct. Think about it for a while perhaps. ArbCom's task is not to punish but to prevent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EytanMelech, I'm not asking for evidence in this specific case here anymore as I've received enough for the support vote above. In case you are genuinely unaware of having made proxy edits, whether for the username you provided or whomever, I encourage you to have a close look at the e-mails you have received again, and to check if you have really never done exactly what you have been asked for. Perhaps that is an awakening experience; if it is, maybe you could provide a few diffs from your list of contributions that surprise you in hindsight. Unless that happens, I won't comment further on this motion here as everything has been said from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EytanMelech: Have you at any point received any emails asking you to make any sort of edit (specific or general) on Wikipedia? If you are not comfortable answering this question publicly here please feel free to email the Arbitration Committee privately. - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence shows that emails went out and then, shortly after, the exact requested edits were made. We are talking in some cases word for word copies. For all three users named, this happened enough times to consider sanctions. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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

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

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

(permanent section links added) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[in response to Nableezy below] First of all, please remove my comment if I am not supposed to reply, I am not sure if I am allowed to directly address Nableezy in this thread, my accuser. This is my first time involved in one of these arbitration discussions.
I would like to say that I have looked back at my edits on contentious topics regarding Israel-Palestine conflict, and I have not seen a very good example of me having done anything of the sort that you address right here in your statement. I have definitely re-done an edit that someone did in examples of reverts, but it doesn't even look like I used similar edit summaries to recent edits of that period, and I have looked back to edits right before the start of the current war for this. If you are comfortable providing an example to me personally, I can address certain claims. EytanMelech (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[in response to Aoidh above] Yes I have recieved emails before from people. The majority of my emails have simply been people asking for general Wikipedia help (i.e. questions and whatnot about sourcing, asking my opinion on certain edits & help with references), but I have also received emails from people who have directly asked me to make certain edits regarding the Israel Palestine conflict.
There are many emails, such as ones of this nature, that I have ignored, or have replied to in an avoidant manner (i.e. make an excuse for not fulfilling the request while still trying to be nice to be nice). Examples include requests for me to do reverts of edits or to change existing information in articles based on conflicting sources. EytanMelech (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree When asked to do so (most reverts from Fagerbakke, honestly), I would wait until more edits were done and would make the excuse "someone already reverted it", or I would say something like "I can't revert that, there is not a good reason." or "there's an edit war going on, sorry". If you provide me an email, I can send some screenshots of me being avoidant towards him. EytanMelech (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. I did not make edits for Faggerbakke, and the amount of evidence I can show you will prove it. There are also many instances of me straight up ignoring him, in addition to ones of me saying that I don't want to. I never made any edits out of being compelled. I can send you screenshots of 13 different requests of his, showing I ignored him or said that I couldn't for an excuse reason. EytanMelech (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(response to ToBeFree in questioning section; not sure how the formatting works)
Well it would be helpful to know what actual edits I'm accused of making, because I don't have any actual way of "awakening" to anything when I don't have a clear answer of what I've been charged with. Pretty much everything I see on a skim of the 5,000 most recent edits of mine are the hundreds of hours I've spent creating 150+ articles on Wikipedia or doing newpagereview triage to help quality control for the site. EytanMelech (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are aware of the 15 discussions linked in the first motion above at #General facts? If I were you, that's where I'd start looking for edits relevant to this motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KevinL. I did see the motion listing the discussions. I don't deny that I commented in discussions, voicing my opinions in a few on that list, but I should rephrase what I said as I rushed my response to ToBeFree. I understand those are the allegations, but my frustration is not being able to defend myself against whatever evidence I have been accused of for those edits being made. I explain in ¶4 and 6 of my opening statement, in defense of allegations that I was involved in making edits to the actual pages in the I-P topic prior to my involvement in the discussions, including expansion of early pages during the conflict where I added sources and other information surrounding the conflict, as I was interesting in improving coverage of the topic as soon as the war started, and since I looked at these pages often, I voted on discussions I saw on pages when on the Wiki, not because a canvasser had me make proxy edits on their behalf.
I also often looked at pages for useful information to use when I would debate with others online in social media (i.e. someone makes a claim about Apartheid in Israel, and I went to wikipedia and Israel's page to pull up info/sources to respond to them with, as was the case when I voted on the apartheid discussion on Israel's talk page. EytanMelech (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Per my explanation in the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per reasonining on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Barkeep49's assessment regarding Homerethegreat. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Evidence is not clear and convincing to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The evidence is not definitive enough in my view to warrant a total ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Barkeep49 below in the TBAN motion. firefly ( t · c ) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Barkeep49 in the TBAN motion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homerethegreat topic ban

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

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

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. Evidence supports this determination but is a more narrow restriction that still adequately addresses the issue at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not find credible his assertion he received a single email given the nature and timing of edits that were made. There are too many instances that the first time he shows up to an article is after an email (ex 1 of several: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). Given that he does appear to be exercising his own editorial judgement and in light of his overall editing, I do not think a site ban is necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per reasoning on motion 2. Maxim (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Barkeep. For all three editors but possibly Homerethegreat more so, I'd like to see them take this an opportunity to establish a strong track record in other topic areas. That would, of course, stand them in good stead for an appeal but the experience would be valuable for returning to ARBPIA discussions anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Barkeep says it exactly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Barkeep49. firefly ( t · c ) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Aoidh and Barkeep49, and agree with HJMitcheel about wanting a strong track record in other topic areas. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not see clear evidence that Homerethegreat has been acting as a result of off-wiki communications or other things that ArbCom is uniquely qualified to handle, and so I think it is not appropriate for us to jump to a TBAN. We have plenty of community processes available if their editing in ARBPIA is an issue. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to IRL issues, I have not kept up to date with this now rather gigantic page, and do not think I will be able to come up to speed. My apologies, and thanks to all who have worked hard to the right answer here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Regarding @Tamzin’s statement, I will note that I wrote “Strongly support the lifting of block” because that’s what I saw written, and I read what people wrote and I thought that was strong so I repeated it, I will also note that I did not know one was not allowed to say again the same arguments so I’m sorry for that. I will also note Gilabrand was one of the first users in English Wiki that removed stuff I wrote and changed some stuff I did and I actually learned that way what was not allowed or recommended and so I was surprised that the user was to be banned and so felt I had to do something. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Homerethegreat with the greatest respect, your statement does not address the matter at hand. ArbCom is not concerned with your politics or identity. Personally, what I want to get to the bottom of is: did you receive emails asking you to make certain edits or contribute to certain discussions and if so did you do as requested? We have evidence that the requests were sent and that in at least some cases the intended recipients made the requested edits shortly thereafter so if you didn't make proxy edits how did you independently come to the discussions linked above and to the opinions that you offered? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to @HJ Mitchell: I received a single email on October 22 using foul language, requesting that I edit a page not listed above, which I did not do. In other instances, I received private messages from different editors, but these were unrelated to voting requests.
As for how I reached each of the discussions, my usual routine involves checking my watchlist, participating and checking in different WikiProjects, and occasionally viewing other users' talk pages. I assume this is how I encountered the discussions. Like every editor, I have my own methods for finding topics of interest and deciding what interests me, I am not reliant on others for this. My daily routine includes looking at WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine, and other pages to find AFDs, RfCs, requests for merger, requested moves and other matters that interest me. Sometimes, I review other editors' edit histories to stay informed about ongoing activities.
In reply to @Guerillero:I would like to know which of the above discussion links apply to the evidence in my case. I don't see any privacy reasons preventing this from being provided. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I believe these discussions are relevant regarding Homerethegreat:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In reply to @The Wordsmith: I feel that the comparison with WP:EEML is eye-opening. In that case, not a single editor was sanctioned for merely being canvassed to participate in a discussion or perform an edit; rather, all the sanctioned editors were also actively involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, canvassing others, sharing their account passwords, including in once case, an administrator (!).
Despite the fact their conduct was much worse than the allegations in this case, not a single editor was indefinitely site banned or topic banned.
My conclusion is that, based on this precedent, being a target of canvassing is not sanctionable by an indefinite topic ban. Marokwitz (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have numerous more recent examples where people were sanctioned for the kidns of behaviors in this case. An example I can think of off the top of my head is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. In casting my vote in this case I have take[n] into account [our] earlier decisions when deciding new cases Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: In the case you are citing, one user was indefinitely topic-banned from pages about weather for canvassing other editors off-wiki. Is there a precedent for indefinitely topic-banning an editor for being the canvassed party? Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. First, it wasn't noted in the WPTC evidence, but multiple parties but asked for and acted on the asks of others. Unfortunately the ones that are straight "acting on others" I can think of off the top of my head are all ArbCom blocks, which means they were not discussed publicly at all. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Remind, warn, admonish

Add the following to the Arbitration Procedures as a subsection of "Arbitration Proceedings"

When used in arbitration motions or remedies, the words below should be considered to have the following order of severity:

  1. Remind (weakest)
  2. Warn
  3. Admonish (strongest)
Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion (Remind, warn, admonish)

Support

  1. During my time on the committee this scale has been used with increasing consistency. By adding it to our procedures we make things clear for arbs and for others (including parties) what our intent is when using these words. The biggest argument I've heard against this proposal is that we should only use 1 word. I think it's important for ArbCom to have a way to distinguish among behavior that is bad but perhaps not so bad as to require a remedy. This is particularly useful in cases where multiple parties might have done something wrong, but it would be unfair to one party to suggest their conduct is equally wrong to another party. I'm pretty open to other versions of this but chose this format so that ArbCom could choose to add other words in the future if it wishes (for instance "caution" was used pretty regularly in the past but has fallen out of favor) and can still have more flexibility to evolving usage than by adopting the more detailed versions I've come up with in this glossary. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've been under the impression for over a decade that this was already an unwritten rule, so I'm happy to formally codify it. Maxim (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support with pleasure - an excellent way to give clarity and ensure consistency. firefly ( t · c ) 17:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh, this is wonderfully simple and useful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sure. No strong opinions in codifying this. Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm happy that this motion is being proposed in public, given that questions about these terms seem to crop up every time the Committee uses a remedy from this spectrum. Hopefully this passing will help chip away (slightly) at the mystique of Committee proceedings. For Izno's concerns below, I do not think that we should be dividing this into sets of verbs for administrators/non-administrators or for editing/actions. Remedies with these words will usually (or should) say why they've been warned (edit-warring etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A documented explanation of the "scale" that ArbCom already uses is helpful for clarification purposes. I do support L235's first three bullet points below, particularly changing harshest to strongest or most severe. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Makes no substantive changes to the current situation. I would much rather we choose one warning type rather than continuing to have 3 overlapping ones. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. I am not opposed. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Primefac. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator general discussion (Remind, warn, admonish)

My comments are stylistic.
  • "arbitration" isn't a proper noun and should generally be de-caps unless we want to make it a proper noun going forward. See, e.g., WP:Arbitration ("The arbitration process exists [...]").
  • "harshest" -> "most severe". I don't think we should characterize any particular action as inherently "harsh". (For consistency, this might imply "mildest" -> "least severe".)
  • Add a comma after "motions or remedies".
  • (least important) "have" is a somewhat weak verb. Consider "express the following order of severity".
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your two copy edits are of course great in my mind. Would you be OK with mildest->weakest and harshest->strongest @L235:? I have more concerns about the last suggestion. Words have meaning and I think that is a clearer expression of what we're doing than "express the following order of severity". Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: strongest/weakest: We already indicate that it's in "order of severity", so "most severe" and "least severe" seem most appropriate, but I wouldn't object to "strongest"/"weakest". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, Sdrqaz, Z1720, ToBeFree, Firefly, and Maxim: I have made the changes L235 suggested (minus "have"). Please revert if any of these concern you. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me! firefly ( t · c ) 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues here with the changes. - Aoidh (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 are fine, no opinion on 2, tend to disagree about 4 per Barkeep49. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on points one and four from Kevin's proposed changes, in favour of some change for point two (neutral between Kevin and Barkeep's proposals), and unambiguously in favour of the comma (point three). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I'm not understanding the advantage you see in restricting certain words to admins/non-admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Remind, warn, admonish)

Maxim sums up my opinion well, this has been my understanding of how the words are used for a long time now and I can see no harm from codifying it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "Reminded" should even have a severity, a plain reading of it seems to avoid implying that anyone has done something wrong. Unlike the others, it is often used in a general sense regarding broad principles (Editors are reminded that...) rather than referring to specific editors. It might be better to leave it as Severity 0 and bring back Cautioned as the mildest severity, as that at least has the connotation that there's dangerous territory ahead. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time to review the previous decade of use of verbs for non-remedies (I have a spreadsheet...). The committee might consider further review than the votes above.

For groups of users:

  1. Remind shows up across the whole decade and is retained here, so no further comment.
  2. Urge and invite show up in 2014 and 2015 but have otherwise fallen into disuse.
  3. Caution shows up in 2014 and no later, so it seems also to have fallen into disuse.
  4. Advise shows up twice, once in 2022 and once in 2019. It should be considered a bit further.
  5. Encourage shows up about a dozen times from 2014 to 2017. It should be considered a bit further.

For single users:

  1. Caution shows up once for an admin in 2018, but has otherwise fallen into disuse. I support dropping any future use as there is sufficient intent between remind and warn.
  2. Remind and warn show up across the whole decade and are retained in this proposal. For remind there is mixed use for admins and non-admins. Warnings are almost exclusively used for non-administrators (with only 2 admin uses). Consider whether the use of the word merits restricting to non-admins.
  3. Admonish: Use has shifted, ignoring one specific case in 2019, from any user to mostly administrators. It appears to be mixed before that. This probably merits more discussion as to whether it should be restricted only to use for admins.

Izno (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel admonish is generally used more specifically for admins as a final warning, i.e. next time a similar level offense occurs a desysop will likely happen. Galobtter (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's a statistical artifact. There are two "modes" of case: one is administrator conduct, and the other is a lot of bad behaviour in a given topic area. When we have a non-admin who gets sanctioned, it is more likely to be in a topic-related case, so an interaction ban, topic ban, or a site ban are likely remedies. For an admin, it's the admin conduct cases, so we'll end up with a desysop or an admonishment. Note that very often the admonishment is the lesser proposed remedy, even though it rarely (if ever?) passes. Maxim (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spreadsheet was done as a count of specific remedies rather than a count of the number of cases, e.g. "User 1 is reminded." got a specific line. It might be a statistical artifact indeed, but as I noted we have continued to use the words warn and remind before, during, and since each of the uses of the word admonish. Izno (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an administrator behaves poorly in a non-administrative task, and such behaviour would ordinarily result in a warning to a non-administrator, I do not feel there should be an arbitrary restriction that would prevent a warning to be given. Although I appreciate that some editors feel that administrators should meet a higher standard of conduct, I do not feel this should preclude warning the administrator about their poor behaviour, even if the standard being used is more stringent. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, the core of it is that I am pretty sure three layers of "non-remedy" verbs are unnecessary to express the range of non-remedy opinions of behavior ArbCom might have, and now is the time to decide they are(n't).
Remind is a good word to have regardless of whether there is another one or five - its clear intent is "we noticed it, be a better human" and less the other two, which is clearly "knock it off". So I don't think that merits too much discussion.
Regarding warning/admonishment: The dictionary definition of an admonishment uses the word warn, sometimes weakly and sometimes lukewarmly, but it is not indicated in the plain meaning as being a stronger warning.
Choosing to use warning and admonishment for the kind of editor who shows up (admin/non-admin), or perhaps the rights being employed that earned the remedy (say, A/B/CU/OS rights in the admonish pile and the others in the warn pile) is a nice way to flatten the number of "stop that"s. It also gives them distinct meanings (here, you did a bad editing thing | here you did a bad adminning thing), since right now it's just arbitrary tiering of most-least severe.
As it happens, in the review I did there were some uses of adverbs such as strongly warn, so if ArbCom really needs to reach for a strong warning rather than just a warning, it might consider instead using strongly.... Izno (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer to minimize the amount of jargon used, and so would not prefer using different verbs solely based on whether or not the action under discussion was an administrative or non-administrative task. I think it would be better to ensure that the behaviour in question was clearly described as an administrative or non-administrative action, in cases where there is ambiguity. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Right now admonish kind of sticks out as clear jargon. Izno (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to keep the three-level system, would you prefer "reprimanded" or "rebuked" over "admonished"? I've personally always felt that "admonished" is sterner than "warned", but wanted to hear your thoughts on these alternatives. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admonished is jargon, but at this point it's so firmly entrenched in Wikipedia that changing it would cause far more confusion than it would solve. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Even if it's supposedly "entrenched" it's still not clear. Which one's the more serious, I assume it's "warned"? But I couldn't be certain. A different word is essential if we're codifying this formally.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a cost to changing precisely because some people do understand the current words and there are a bunch of cases which use them. Picking different words doesn't mean those new words will be universally understood either. So I think the best solution is to be explicit about our intent by passing this motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming a three-level structure, perhaps the third level could include two synonymous terms, such as "admonish or strongly warn". This would reflect past historical use, but also allow the arbitration committee to transition to a term where an intensifier makes the relationship to the previous level clear. This would avoid the problem with different people having different connotations based on their experiences. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of three. I think two is all that is necessary: remind and warn. Anything else and you're likely looking at an actual remedy instead as a serious option. I also agree with Amakuru: this is an opportunity to improve the situation, rather than merely reflect the past. Dropping the clear jargon and apparently ENGVAR-confused word makes a lot of sense as it doesn't appear to aid in the understanding for anyone. If you really must have a third tier, just bake it into the second with a strongly.
Of the words that have so far been thrown around assuming some sort of third tiering, I think I'd prefer censure just after a strongly warn.
But we're up to a passing motion at this point, so at least it's on paper I guess... Izno (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a comma after remedies. No opinion on the capitalization of the "A" in "Arbitration". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with a sliding scale, but better words need to be chosen. "Warn" and "admonish" sound kind of similar and I have no idea which of the two is supposed to be the more severe. Arbcom has a duty to the community to be clear and unambiguous, rather than using its own jargon.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Censured? Valereee (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Admonish" is a worst-case choice for this purpose. It's relatively uncommon and has unclear and widely-varying connotations, possibly ENGVAR-based: compare, say, dictionary.com implying a severity similar to "remind", and oed.com as well past "warn". Formalizing it improves things somewhat and there's no help for the usage in old cases, but I'm fairly confident that none of "reprimand" or "rebuke" or "censure" have this sort of ambiguity in any variant of English. —Cryptic 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're on the subject of being pedantic, here's my deal: can I get you guys to set out a canonical capitalization for yourselves? Here are the cases, along with the way I tend to capitalize them -- are these correct?
  • New decisions have been announced by the Arbitration Committee
  • She was elected to the position of arbitrator
  • Three arbs endorsed and one arb opposed
  • The Committee issued a motion on Saturday
  • Those editors are subject to an arbitration ruling
  • That topic area was first arbitrated in 2016, and they may arbitrate it again soon.
jp×g🗯️ 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:
  • "Arbitration Committee" (or, in short, "the Committee") is a proper noun and therefore capitalized.
  • "arbitration" is not.
  • "arbitrator" is also not, except possibly (but discouraged by me) as a title for a person right before their name ("Arbitrator L235") (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people).
See also: User:L235/Arbitrator or arbitrator KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1200775605"