Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 30 November 2024 • Evidence closes 21 December 2024 • Workshop closes 28 December 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 January 2025

Scope: The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh (Talk) & HJ Mitchell (Talk) & CaptainEek (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

AE cases

1) A case involving contentious topic restrictions under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic should be of the form A reports B and admins investigate/adjudicate. No third parties, except possibly other admins. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) [Amended, attempt to specify which AE cases but feel free to tinker Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC) ]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To prevent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Preliminary statements#Statement by Barkeep49 "the discussion ballooned to potential misconduct by multiple other editors"

To prevent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#WP:BATTLEGROUND "editors show up to take pot shots at each other whenever an opportunity presents itself."

To prevent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Preliminary statements#Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish "we still can't adequately investigate large and sprawling issues at AE", "there are very few admins doing any sort of AE work" and "many of those doing that work are doing so intermittently". Etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is something I've thought about quite a bit. It's a difficult biscuit to bake, though, since the community should have some measure of input and sometimes there are good points brought up. For a while it was bad enough that I floated the idea of topic banning people from AE that had shown up at more than half of the ARBPIA reports in the past six months. In a recent case I also suggested handing out 90 day topic bans to anyone casting aspersions at an AE report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll say this here, rather than in a separate "Analysis of evidence" section (not really about the proposed motion). I think the kinds of patterns of conduct that SFR presents at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#WP:BATTLEGROUND (mentioned just above) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Involved editors shut down good faith formal discussions and edit war over it matches very well with what I, too, observed in my more limited experience, and seems to me to be exactly the kind of things where Arbs should be paying close attention for this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Question for clarification: perhaps this is self-explanatory and I'm just missing something but which AE's, in particular? All AE's? ARBPIA 5-only ones (meaning starting from the conclusion of this case)? All ARBPIA (meaning, starting as soon as the motion passes)? Could we specify that a bit more clearly in the motion please? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Levivich

Proposed principles

Ignorance of sources can be disruptive

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources. Although there are many ways in which an editor can improve an article without having read any sources (e.g., copyediting, formatting), in order to meaningfully contribute to the summarizing of sources, an editor must read at least some of the sources. Making talk page arguments that an article is not accurately or neutrally summarizing sources, without citing or meaningfully engaging with any sources, is disruptive. If an editor believes an article is not correctly summarizing sources, the first step is to read the sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know exactly how best to word this idea, but it ought to be a principle enunciated by arbcom: if one wants to participate in the summarizing of sources, one must read the sources. I'm reminded of something that Zero said at ARCA, that too often editors arrive at articles armed with nothing more than their opinion and maybe a news article. Too often editors challenge basic aspects of I/P (e.g. whether Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, whether Zionism involved colonization) without citing anything that backs up their doubts, and clearly without having read any of the sources cited (or any sources not cited). Wikipedia is at a phase where many of its main articles, particularly in CTOP areas like I/P, are fairly well-developed. Prior editors put a lot of work into reading and summarizing the sources. New editors who want to improve such articles need to "do the reading if they want to engage in clas discussion." Levivich (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Re "How does one prove that they've read the sources?": The way we know if someone has read (at least some of) the sources is if they are engaging with the sources in their talk page comments, e.g. citing sources, quoting sources, or otherwise discussing what sources say. At Talk:Zionism (and its archives), for example, it is very, very easy to tell apart the posts where editors are discussing sources, and the posts where editors are sharing their opinions devoid of any mention of sources. You just have to read the post and see if it references any specific sources or not. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Of course it is far better to make oneself familiar with the source material, than not to do so. But to accuse someone of being ignorant when you disagree with them, instead of simply explaining one's position based on the source material, is more disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying "ignorance of sources can be disruptive" and accusing someone of being ignorant. Editors familiar with the sources trying to explain a position based on the source material when the person they're explaining it to isn't familiar with those sources is an ongoing source of disruption in the area. Editors who have never edited in the area but who have been whipped up by media/social media come in sometimes daily armed with an opinion but no knowledge of sources in the topic and have to receive those same explanations again. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's exhausting simply to watch. But if we're concerned about semantics, perhaps "lack of familiarity"? Valereee (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, but I said that in the context of my evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

How does one prove that they've read the sources? I understand where you're coming from with regards to casual readers, but I see a chilling effect arising if a principle like this one were to be passed as good, knowledgeable editors will both 1) simply continue to pass the topic area by for not knowing where the bar is, or thinking it is too high to bother with, and 2) be chased out of the topic area because they missed something that was said in citation No. 420 in an article with over 1000 citations. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 19:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any expectation that people be aware of the contents of every citiation on every page - only that they read the citations they intend to discuss at article talk. Even there we might run into problems when, as is often the case, the abstract is readily available but Springer wants its blood tithe of $50 to rent the paper for a week. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, not reading any sources is unacceptable, but it never happens. I am certain that all participants read something on these subjects. Main point by L. is actually different: people should not argue without citing some sources. I would disagree with it: someone well familiar with subject X frequently can clarify the issue even without citing any specific sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignorance of prior talk page discussions can be disruptive

1) Before raising an issue for discussion on an article talk page, editors should review the talk page archives and familiarize themselves with previous discussions about the same issue, in order to avoid wasting editor time with unnecessary repetition. For example, if an editor wants to raise a specific sentence in an article for discussion, the editor should search for that sentence in the talk page archives, and read any prior discussions about that sentence, before starting a new discussion about the sentence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It can be, it can also be disruptive when a new editor shows up with something maybe new to say and 4 people tell him to read the old discussions, been discussed before, and keep talking about what a waste of time it is. Andre🚐 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In my experience the appearance of many multiple editors inexperienced in the topic is highly disruptive, and I often advise them to read at minimum all current discussions in order to get themselves up to speed and avoid being disruptive. I've seldom seen new editors show up with something new to say. This has been an ongoing issue at Talk:Zionism since the article started getting attention in media/social media from mid-September. There are new sections opened sometimes daily about content that is actively being discussed there by editors who've never edited in the topic and clearly didn't bother to read anything on the talk page before opening a new section. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Some talk page discussions in this topic area span multiple archive pages and consume thousands of words, and a good many are repetitive blocks of text. So I would proceed cautiously in this area, lest we discourage new editors in the topics in question. We should be encouraging them. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Being right is everything

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. What is more important than anything else is that Wikipedia provide accurate information to its billions of readers, and, conversely, that it not be used to spread misinformation or disinformation. If every editor followed every Wikipedia rule to the letter, but the result was an encyclopedia filled with misinformation, then Wikipedia would be a failure. All of Wikipedia's policies and other rules are in service of this singular goal: an accurate encyclopedia. That is why WP:IAR is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia: if a rule gets in the way of creating an accurate encyclopedia, editors should ignore that rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In my view, Levivich's comment signifiantly overstates things. Correct, being right is everything in the sense that it's the goal of the system we're building. But Wikipedia is a collaboration between many tens of thousands of people, and systems like Wikipedia only work to the extent that they have rules and processes that successfully facilitate collaboration among them. Collaborating between a few people is easy (or at least much easier); what we do on this project is a damn miracle.

This proposed principle posits an unacceptable and inaccurate dichotomy between following the rules and having "an encyclopedia filled with misinformation". Rules that produce an encyclopedia filled with misinformation are not fit for purpose, and the correct response is to change them, not to flout them in individual circumstances. Judicious, careful, occasional reliance on IAR is fine, but (a) using IAR creates negative side effects and (b) not everyone has the ability (confidence, capital, competence, correctness) to successfully IAR, and so if we ever find ourselves relying on IAR to avert "an encyclopedia filled with misinformation", then we're doing it wrong. This is what "being right isn't enough" means, and I don't think this proposed principle is a fit response to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If this principle was valid, every activist in the topic area would point to it as a blank check to do whatever they want because something is anti-Jewish/anti-Muslim/anti-Druze/anti-Israel/anti-Palestine "misinformation or disinformation" on the project and they were only trying to correct it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Information can be accurate (especially taken in isolation) and and still be presented in a biased and problematic way. Thinking that you are right also does not excuse problematic behavior. I assume most editors think that they are right and that what they are saying is accurate, that alone does not warrant disregarding core policies, engaging in sockpuppetry, or taking part in inappropriate off-wiki collaboration, for example. - Aoidh (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• With Levivs clarification, I think I understand his point much better. But I thinking the framing got our hackles up :) Perhaps a different title would make us more willing to implement it, like "the end goal is accuracy" or "we value accuracy and disdain misinformation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Arbcom got it wrong with the "being right isn't enough" principle from the smallcats case. Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. It is not a virtual society where we make rules and follow rules and then judge each other for how well we follow the rules. Rules about edit warring, civility, etc., all of it is secondary to the primary goal of accurately summarizing reliable sources. What does this mean in practice? When there is an edit war, and one side of the edit war is a bunch of socks pushing propaganda, we should not treat that side of the edit war in the same way as we treat the other side of the edit war. If two editors are uncivil to each other, but one of them is POV-pushing and the other one is pushing NPOV, we should not treat the two editors as the same. Source misrepresentation needs to be treated as one of the worst possible offenses on Wikipedia--far worse than pressing the "undo" button too many times. But too often, as we've seen in the AE cases that preceded this arbcom case, we act as if "a revert is a revert," and it doesn't matter whether the revert is made to restore truth, or restore a lie. This is a mistake. If we forget about the importance of accuracy, we've lost the plot. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@arbs: Please do not confuse accurate content with "thinking that you are right", those are two totally different and unrelated things. For those who ask "how do you know when content is right?", we have policies like V and NPOV that answer that question. For those of you having trouble understanding what I'm saying, "being right" == policy-compliant content, i.e. content that complies with V, NPOV, BLP, etc etc. That is the most important thing -- everything else is secondary. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I plead guilty to writing attention-grabbing headlines :-D Although tbh I thought my description was pretty clear (eg, "accurately summarizing reliable sources"), but maybe not.

This isn't about rhetoric, though, there are (IMO) very clear, very concrete applications of this principle to the evidence in this case. In the Great Zionism Edit War, one side was mostly socks (ABHammad, et al.) trying to remove "colonization" from the article. In the Palestinians edit war, it was mostly the same group of socks trying to remove "indigenous". Even pro-Israeli historians like Mordechai Bar-On, Anita Shapira, Yoav Gelber say Zionism was colonization and Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine (and even the primary sources--writings of Zionists themselves--use those same words). This was just POV pushing by a sockfarm which is dedicated to POV pushing. And some have said throughout this process that "both sides" should be sanctioned for edit warring. I say now: the side that is POV pushing should be sanctioned; the other side should get barnstars. Because if we have to choose between edit warring, or having Wikipedia say that Palestinians aren't indigenous to Palestine... if we must choose (and we don't have to), then we should choose accurate content, even if that means having to revert a lot of socks to get to the accurate content. (A better choice would be to block the socks or take other steps to prevent this.) But it's a mistake to approach these things in a "content-neutral" way, as if the editor who presses "undo" to POV push is just as culpable as the editor who presses "undo" to remove the POV pushing. The most important thing is that Wikipedia say that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, because that's what the RSes say. A Wikipedia where no one edit wars -- but that questions whether Palestinians are indigenous -- is worse than a Wikipedia that says Palestinians are indigenous but where people edit war. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's manifestly not everything, per Arbcom precedent. If being right was everything, wouldn't that make it ok to sock and be incivil as long as the factual content was correct? Being accurate is important, but people make mistakes and there are also differences of opinion that are being miscategorized as factual errors. It's also possible to be factually correct and have an inappropriate tone or style. Andre🚐 04:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I do think this touches on something important about the topic area. The system is not really designed for a world where there are large asymmetries between accounts that change the cost/benefit of a given action. The cost of edit warring or pushing propaganda for a ban evading actor is zero, or at most, the cost of acquiring extendedconfirmed rights for the next account. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't everything, but it's not nothing either. And the WP:BRIE principle has transformed into "it doesn't matter if you are right at all" and that is just as negative as treating being right as everything. When a group is edit-warring to shift the article away from the balance of sources, to push minority POVs as fact, to violate our core content policies but they do so politely, the result is generally nothing done in response until it becomes a "multi-party edit war" (even if it ends up being one sockmaster and four accounts edit-warring against five other editors). The aversion to deal with the root causes of these disputes because they are more difficult to deal with than say counting four letter words or number of reverts is the thing that makes editing in "contentious topics" so difficult. nableezy - 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

While Levivich could have expressed it better, there is a long-term problem with our procedures that needs correction. It is a fact, and it has been a fact for years, that swearing at another editor is a much quicker way to get t-banned than misrepresenting sources. It should be the other way around. Pushing of political opinions as fact, wilfully ignoring or distorting sources, and similar direct assaults on our primary purpose should be right at the top of the list of actionable offences. I'm not saying that all behavior is acceptable—certainly not—but one of the main consequences of the "a revert is a revert" principle is to make the work of good editors more difficult. All reverts are absolutely not equal. Nor am I saying that making this change would be a simple matter and would not be challenging for the hard-working admins at AE (writing this as an admin who feels guilty about rarely working there). The least ArbCom should do is to confirm the principle that (non-behavioral) actions that work against article accuracy are severe violations. Zero^talk 03:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, here is a version written in wikispeak, which could probably be broken up into multiple principles:

WP:Core content policies are fundamental. The purpose of Wikipedia is to share accurate knowledge. Using Wikipedia to spread inaccurate knowledge is among the most disruptive things an editor can do. Wikipedia has content policies to ensure Wikipedia is used to share accurate, and not inaccurate, knowledge, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and WP:AT. All of Wikipedia's other editing policies, such as WP:EW, WP:CIV, WP:SOCK, etc., are in service of the content policies, and of Wikipedia's ultimate purpose of sharing accurate knowledge. The point of not edit warring, the point of being civil, the point of not abusing multiple accounts... is to help this website share accurate knowledge ("accurate" as defined by content policies).

Violation of content policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV is just as disruptive, if not more disruptive, than violation of other subsidiary editing policies like WP:EW and WP:CIV. In the most serious cases, the community has gone so far as to create outright exceptions to subsidiary editing policies in order to protect core content policies, such as WP:3RRNO#7's exception to the edit warring policy for removing serious BLP violations. Arbcom has similarly made exceptions, such as WP:ARBECR's exception to the edit warring policy for removing non-edit-requests from non-extended-confirmed editors in this topic area.

When administrators evaluate editors' conduct and seek to identify and prevent disruption, they should look not only at violation of non-content policies such as EW and CIV, but also at violation of content policies such as V and NPOV. For example, if two editors are edit warring, and one of them is also violating V by introducing unsourced content while the other editor is upholding V by removing unsourced content, reviewing admins should take this into account, treating violating core content policies as sanctionable disruption in its own right, and as aggravating factors when coupled with violation of other editing policies. (Conversely, in appropriate cases, upholding core content policies may be treated as a mitigating factor.) As another example, admins should apply sanctions when necessary to prevent the misrepresentation of sources just as they would apply sanctions when necessary to prevent incivility.

While administrators (and arbcom) should not decide content disputes, that does not mean that admins cannot identify and take steps to prevent violations of content policies. As with sanctions for violation of any policy, sanctions for violations of content policies should be based on clear violations: there is a marked difference between an editor outright making up quotes from sources that do not actually appear in those sources, and an editor having an interpretation of a source which is a minority but reasonable interpretation. While admins should not go so far as to sanction editors for having a minority view of sources, they should also not turn a blind eye to suspected or reported content policy violations, nor treat all policy violations as if they were the same. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• If someone distorts a source inadvertently, due to a mistake, carelessness, sloppiness, or whatever, remedy is to point it out. Everyone makes a mistake. If they acquiesce and correct it, there's no issue. If someone persists in distorting sources, that is a WP:CIR issue. I don't see how that isn't already an issue that would be addressed. Most people who mean well and have requisite competence in this area aren't going around inserting falsehoods or misrepresenting sources intentionally. Most of the time we have differences of opinion of interpretation, weight, tone, and other things, for example is Karsh a real historian or a hack that needs to be excluded? Karsh sometimes interprets things that contradict Morris. Does that mean you're pushing POV if you use Karsh? I do not think that is fair. If someone was really going around pushing blatant falsehoods that is already sanctionable. I think some editors like to characterize every difference of interpretation as a difference of fact that has a clear resolution. The truth is that history is, as Bacon said, just planks from a shipwreck. There are large differences in historiography from the traditional and conservative interpretations, to revisionist and modern left-wing interpretations, to the historiographies of other groups. Subscribing to a different narrative, or wanting to balance the POVs of experts, is not propagandizing or POV pushing, and in my view the continued aspersions that differences of interpretation are tantamount to pushing falsehood is itself somthing that should be sanctionable. Many of the decisions we make are questions of tone, weight, inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information, and historiography. I have not seen anyone provide a diff of straightforward source misrepresentation by any party. If they had, that would be a different conversation. Andre🚐 04:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Kevin put it very well, but I'm sufficiently troubled by this doubling down, instead of recognizing mistakes and taking responsibility for them, that I want to add a few things. Saying that "being right isn't enough" is not an endorsement of getting it wrong. Wikipedia gets it right by the use of crowdsourcing, which on its face is a terrible idea, but empirically is an idea that has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Editors who do things the right way, by taking the time to read and understand sources, and by taking the time to read and understand policies and guidelines, should have the self-confidence to treat other editors with a basic level of decency. If the other editor doesn't understand the source, explain it to them civilly. Don't insult them gratuitously. And don't act entitled. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fully agreed. People believing that being Right excuses their bad behaviour is already a problem in contentious topics; let's not encourage it. Even if this were a good idea, having ArbCom decide who is Right without ruling on content (which per policy they do not do) seems as though it will be a nightmare at best. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to respond to some of the further comments made in the named parties section. The idea that WP:BRIE can be credibly misread as saying that being right doesn't matter at all is a misreading of what BRIE actually says. If there are socks or inexperienced editors who are making such a claim, they should be directed to what it actually says – and if there are experienced editors who are claiming that BRIE should be downplayed because of this risk, those editors are likely to be violating BRIE themselves. And I think that CaptainEek is giving Levivich too much credit for that clarification. Yes, there is a problem with sockfarms whose edits need to be undone, and yes, we should not let anti-Palestinian POV-pushing go uncorrected. But to present the entire "BRIE versus anti-BRIE" issue in the context of this case as just being about those sockfarms is to miss an essential point, and probably to deflect attention from that point as well. There is no justification for treating experienced, good-faith editors as if they are indistinguishable from socks, no matter how right an editor believes themselves to be. And there is an abundance of evidence of just that, on the evidence page. This seems to me to be further doubling down. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I 100% believe that VERACITY is one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. I also believe that factional editing to advance a POV is contrary to a couple of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia also — Neutrality and Collegiality. I'm more worried about the trend of turning current events pages into a competitive sporting event that I am about anyone deliberately spreading misinformation. Both sides have been guilty of atrocities in the middle east. That is not the question. The question is whether the policy of NOTBATTLEGROUND is going to be followed or not. It seems an easy decision. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If this principle passes, the result--across all major disputes, not just PIA--is that several users will use this to justify non-cooperative behavior. In fact, the "Being right isn't enough" principle is designed precisely to prevent this justification. And "not enough" explicitly means that it's a good thing but not a global justification. Animal lover |666| 09:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In disputed topic areas there's also the question of how to ascertain who is right - there may very well not be one most-right answer. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This principle could easily be used to justify:

1. POV pushing
2. Edit warring (probably every user who does this is basing themselves on this principle)
3. Personal attacks and harassment of those who are "wrong"
4. Repeatedly starting discussions to change a just-established consensus the user thinks is wrong
5. Use of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in discussions
6. Continuing all the problematic behaviors associated with this principle despite heing warned to stop
7. Refusing to abide by bans
8. If blocked, creating lots of sockpuppets to continue to be "right"

Animal lover |666| 19:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All of those things already happen and the people that do them already think they are justified. Non-cooperative behavior can be the right choice. For example, there is no reason to cooperate with people who violate WP:NOT. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think that a more constructive way to think about it is that if our policies and procedures are producing obviously wrong outcomes, or failing to deal with obvious problems, then that might be a good reason to rethink our policies and procedures, or to ask ArbCom to apply area-specific hotfixes to them. Fixing an individual glaring problem via WP:IAR is sometimes defensible, but a topic area cannot run on constant invocations of IAR without falling apart; if editors feel that they constantly have to ignore the rules then we either need to rein them in or change the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This may be true, but a principle that would appear to encourage ignoring rules for the purpose of being "right" is the problem, not the solution. Animal lover |666| 17:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not suggesting that this proposal be passed as worded (it's obviously a nonstarter.) But I think that it might be worth thinking of alternatives. In particular another thing that occurs to me is that while being right can't absolve serious policy violations, being unequivocally wrong ought to push the balance of ambiguous situations towards sanctions. For instance, I noticed that, below, some people are saying that external posts that are clearly intended to drive people to a topic area are not CANVASSing if they aren't directing them to one specific discussion or RFC in particular. I think that this is wrong and that this is a case where what the people are being directed to do matters; that is to say, that is a WP:MEAT situation where someone who directs a lot of people to Wikipedia in a particular way must bear responsibility for what they implicitly directed them to do, if it was obvious, and can be sanctioned for eg. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:BLUDGEON or the like if they're effectively hammering us with discussions that have obviously been resolved with a clear outcome. --Aquillion (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cites/quotes and word limits

1) WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Source citations and quotations do not count toward the word limit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A note for myself so that I come back to this later. I think Levivich and co have nicely identified the value of this exception. One question: do you mean source quotations? Or just quotations in general? Like if I quoted you in a reply. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Re: Eek: I hadn't thought about quotations in general, but that's a good point -- we want editors to be able to quote Wikipedia articles, for example (e.g. when discussing a proposed change), and quoting other editors' comments can be helpful to aid discussion as well; I don't see a reason not to include those. So maybe the sentence should be Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.? Levivich (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re Levivich, quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit might in the other direction be too broad...? It seems like "teams" (tag teams, factions, aligned editors, whatever you want to call them) could bludgeon discussions quoting each other, or indeed (as written) one editor could just quote themselves ad nauseam. Then again, perhaps nothing can solve the first of those issues, and the second one should ideally be handled by advising (and if necessary, enforcing) people not to WP:BLUDGEON.
How would this work with regard to editing a comment? If John comments 950 words, but later decides he'd rather make some other point and edits his comment to replace one 250-word portion of it with a different 250 words, is that OK? Does it matter if, in the interim, Richard has responded to (or quoted!) the original point John made, so it's still part of the discussion? -sche (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

In terms of bludgeoning concerns, it might be worth adding the word "reasonable" in there somewhere, or make a separate principle that quotations should be limited to that required for the context of the comment you are making. Maybe allow uninvolved editors to trim excessive quotations? Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with this with respect to source quotes and citations. This is especially important if people do not have access to sources. Not every source is available with Google Books page views or through Wikipedia library. Lengthy quotes from sources can be collapsed with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be less gameable if editors had to ask for permission instead of just having an open loophole. I.e., "Source citations and quotations count toward the word limit, but editors may request an extension where appropriate and necessary from an uninvolved admin for the purpose of including extended quotations." Safrolic (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable option as well. But wouldn't that be just extra work for administrators? I think one of the whole points of this Arbitration case is the excessive work load in WP:AE. If someone was gaming source citations and quotations exception, I think that would be easy to spot? Bogazicili (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I would call many ask-for-permission-firsts to be ounces of prevention that save pounds of cure. A complaint that goes to AE ends up with stacks of diffs that admins have to pore through, usually with competing narratives, and I have to assume they put in a bunch of analytical work that isn't limited to the linked diffs themselves. Because a direct consequence of plausible misbehaviour is at hand, stakes and emotional temperatures are high, meaning they have to be very careful and diplomatic. That's more mental labour than checking that someone has appropriate material to post beforehand and giving or withholding permission. Safrolic (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

When 1RR is applied, it applies to all related pages

2) The consensus at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 126#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 is rescinded. When 1RR is applied to a topic area or article, it applies to all pages relating to that topic area or article, broadly construed, including without limitation mainspace articles, article talk pages, and project-space discussions relating to the article/topic, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm wondering if the choice to make ARB1RR different was by design, or accident? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This came up at AE: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive342#IntrepidContributor. If arbcom doesn't enact this remedy, then as an alternative it should create an "WP:ARB1RR" that informs editors that ARB1RR differs from regular WP:1RR in that ARB1RR only applies to mainspace and not other namespaces. The current language at WP:1RR says it applies to all pages. (But this would be an inferior choice to just rescinding that ARCA and making "ARB1RR" work the same way as regular 1RR and 3RR and the rest of the WP:EW policy: edit warring is edit warring, and is disruptive, regardless of which namespace it happens in.) Levivich (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Chess

Proposed principles

No longer necessary due to Ivana's ban

Reaffirming previous cases 1) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms the principles in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: While some, perhaps even most, of the principles from those cases may be relevant here, I suspect that some aren't. In addition, the case should be understandable for new users with no need to read other cases. Animal lover |666| 17:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC) That's fair. The reason why I included it is because they both serve as precedents showing that canvassing is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) POV-pushing 2) Editing articles to advance a specific point of view contravenes one of Wikipedia's core principles---that articles have a neutral point of view. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Groups of editors 3) Coordinating other editors to violate Wikipedia's policies is in and of itself a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Canvassing 4) Notifying other editors of discussions is unacceptable when it is done with the intention that it will influence a discussion in a particular way. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

Off-wiki coordination

5) Off-wiki coordination is not inherently wrong. However, it is unacceptable when it results in a negative impact on the encyclopedia itself. Additionally, because off-wiki coordination is not transparent to other editors, conduct that may be tolerated or acceptable on-wiki may become unacceptable off-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Let me guess; the canvassing on X (link) for "Israel Forever Foundation on Dec. 19 about "Wikipedia’s anti-Israel bias and how to fight back against it." "Learn the tricks of the trade with Aaron Bandler, Jewish Journal" is ok with you? Huldra (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: It's not canvassing to host a webinar discussing Wikipedia. It would be canvassing if the webinar asks editors to influence specific discussions onwiki. The webinar would also conflict with our policies if it sought to disrupt the encyclopedia, e.g. by WP:POVPUSHing. I did not attend the webinar, so I can't tell you if any of these policies were violated. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks

6) Wikipedia:No personal attacks forbids abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. (emphasis added)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed, and it's dismaying that so little attention has been focused on incivility, as that has been the primary weapon used against non-SPA editors venturing into this subject area. The high level of heat and hostility is one of the reasons we have PIA5 and will be a factor in PIA6-1000 if not addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the importance of recognizing that "primary weapon used against" what I have called "fresh eyes". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Contextual reliability

7) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters says that The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing based on @Simonm223:'s evidence. I'd appreciate suggestions of contexts in which a generally reliable source should not be used to support claims in articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I like this. Simonm223 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that here we have one of the causes of this particular area being so problematic. PIA topics take up too much of world news relative to what is actually occurring, and mostly antisemitic (just yesterday I read, for example, that an Australian newspaper fired a journalist for refusing to support Hammas, can't find it now, only ever saw it in Hebrew). This, in turn, results in many Wikipedians getting a skewed picture of PIA and makes it more difficult to find RS which will help keep a pro-Palastinian slant off Wikipedia. Pro-Israel users end up fighting an impossible battle, which is the cause of several pro-Israeli sockpuppeteers (Icewhiz being the best known). And then come the pro-Palestinians who follow the pro-Isralis. Animal lover |666| 07:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Point of order: No Australian journalist was fired for refusing to support Hamas.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a reference to an Australian radio host, publicly named only as Nicole, who hosted a 'Latin-American community program' (Not sure if this is supposed to be Latin-Australian) on a station called Radio Skid Row, and was fired last week. First source includes some info about the station's social media history that seems to support her. Sources: 1 2 Safrolic (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally takes 2 seconds on google to find:

[1]

[2]

Don't know about the inherent reliability of these sources, but it was also reported by Sky News Austrailia [3], and I've seen nothing that says it's false.

Regardless, definitively saying "No Australian journalist was fired for refusing to support Hamas" is so egregiously unsupported that it's laughable. Just10A (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Onus

8) A source being generally reliable does not mean the claims made by that source must be included in articles. The burden of proof is on the editor seeking to add content that the content will improve the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is covered by V, WP:ONUS. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposing based on @Simonm223:'s evidence. This clarifies that a claim being made in a reliable source does not mean it should be included in the article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

While it's not likely tp end my quixotic war on GREL this also looks good. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

No longer necessary due to Ivana's ban

Tech for Palestine 1) After the beginning of the Israel–Hamas war, a group known as Tech for Palestine (T4P) started a task force with the goal of adding pro-Palestinian views to Wikipedia articles Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Should the date link to 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel? Animal lover |666| 17:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) I linked it to the Israel-Hamas war, so as not to imply it was part of the attack. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) issue moot, see arb.com announcement, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC) @Huldra: You're right, so I'm collapsing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Ivana's membership in T4P 2a) Ivana was a member of Tech for Palestine. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: issue moot, see arb.com announcement, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Ivana's membership in T4P 2b) Ivana took a leadership role in Tech for Palestine, training other editors. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: issue moot, see arb.com announcement, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND by T4P 3) Tech for Palestine provided training videos describing Wikipedia as a battleground, and explaining that members of Tech for Palestine would promote pro-Palestinian narratives. This violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral points of view. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: issue moot, see arb.com announcement, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Knowing that Tech for Palestine was improper 4) A member of Tech for Palestine's server with knowledge of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies would know that Tech for Palestine's goal was to violate those policies. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: issue moot, see arb.com announcement, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The term "Zionist"

5) Zionism is "religious or political belief" as defined by Wikipedia policies on personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although it is certainly possible to mount a PA using "Zionist" in a derogatory fashion, the same is true for "Palestinian", "Arab", "extreme right", and plenty of other words. I don't see why this particular word deserves special protection. Zero^talk 04:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So the Israelis explicitly working to make Wikipedia more "Zionist" are making a NPA-violation against...themselves??? Huldra (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: Someone "explicitly working to make Wikipedia more 'Zionist'" is generally considered to be WP:POVPUSHing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: I mentioned that sentence, as that was a quotation from one member participating in a course for wikipedia editors, organised by the Yesha Council -there is a video of it. So that would be a NPA-violation? (besides WP:POVPUSH) Huldra (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: If an editor wishes to describe themselves as "explicitly working to make Wikipedia more 'Zionist'", that would not be a violation of WP:no personal attacks. Generally, an editor admitting to violating Wikipedia policies is not considered to have engaged in personal attacks.

If an editor accuses another editor of "explicitly working to make Wikipedia more 'Zionist'" on an article talk page, that is currently a violation of WP:NPA. Article talk pages are for commenting on content, not editor conduct. However, accusing another editor of "explicitly working to make Wikipedia more 'Zionist'" might be appropriate at WP:AE or an Arbitration case. If you want to provide evidence of editors that are editing on behalf of the Yesha Council, you're welcome to do so here.

What I'm currently proposing is that editors shouldn't be allowed to make derogatory comments against "Zionists" on article talk pages. For example, if an editor commented at a requested move that there are "Israelis explicitly working to make Wikipedia more 'Zionist'", that would clearly be sanctionable conduct. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We could just as well making calling an editor "Republican", or "Democrat", or "Christian", or "Muslim", or "Feminist" a bannable offence, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: It's not about the words themselves, but the context in which they are used. Yes absolutely, calling someone a "Republican" or "Christian" (or "[insert political view here]" or "[insert religion here]") as a basis to discredit their edits and/or opinions on Wikipedia would be a violation of WP:NPA and if egregious or persistent enough, would (or should) be bannable. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean I'd honestly like it if I didn't have someone argue I am incapable of neutral editing for being a socialist at least once a month. Simonm223 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this behavior is widespread and not only directed toward editors with a perceived Zionist bias. Simonm223 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Using "Zionist" (or black or Muslim or Republican) as an insult is a personal attack both on the target of the intended insult and on every Zionist (or black or Muslim or Republican) in the world. Using these words descriptvely is generally not an attack. Animal lover |666| 19:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Derogatory usage of the term Zionist

6) Complaining about or making derogatory references to "Zionists" is a personal attack, even if these comments are not directed at a specific editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It would be a travesty to privilege this word over others such as "Palestinian" or "Arab" that are used just as often in similar ways. There is also the problem that "derogatory" is in the eye of the beholder. There are positions that both Zionists and anti-Zionists understand to be Zionist positions and recognizing that openly should not be a source of AE reports. Zero^talk 04:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What when people define themselves as "Zionst": are they making a personal attack against themselves??? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No. The personal attack is when one attacks a political belief on article talk pages. For instance, using the term rabid Palestinians would be unacceptable, but an editor self-describing themselves as a Palestinian would be acceptable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Chess So it is the word "rabid" that you oppose to, but it is the word "Zionist" you say is "a personal attack"? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

i think a distinction should be made between certain terminologies. if an editor calls another a Zio that would probs be harassment… but describing someone as zionist or pro zionism is not inherently an attack. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

also is there significant history of other editors calling editors zionists as derogatory on wikipedia? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: This is in reference to Eladkarmel, who presented several diffs of editors attacking Zionism or Zionists on article talk pages. The term rabid zionists stuck out to me as an example of a term that isn't a direct attack on another editor, but is still something that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the context there is rather important as the phrase "rabid Zionist" was used to describe an ideological extremist who called for Israel to kill all Palestinian males over 13.

While I wouldn't use that language myself as I agree it's unnecessary & unproductive commentary for a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think it's quite the same as your proposed hypothetical of "rabid Palestinians". A more apt comparison would probably be a term like "rabid Islamist" or "rabid communist". _{(Not really an important point, nor a refutation of your intended message, but one I thought worth saying nonetheless).} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: WP:NPA currently reads that using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. So, calling another editor a Zionist, Zio, or pro-Zionist are all explicitly against policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above this policy is routinely flouted. I am frequently accused of implicit bias on the basis of my democratic socialist infobox. Heavens knows what they'd be saying if there was instead an infobox for anarcho-communist Marx / Nietzsche weirdos. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: That's also clearly against policy if brought up on article talk pages. If you'd like to present evidence of that happening, you're welcome to do so. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally not happening at Israel/Palestine articles being fair. This is far more of a problem in the AP2 area. Simonm223 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is my point. "You can't be neutral because of your ideology" is probably the most frequented uttered personal attack on this website, with the possible exception of various forms of "you're stupid" and it's not enforced. Anywhere. Simonm223 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is to say that while I strongly support enforcement against ideologically motivated personal attacks I think the scope is too narrow if we single out just Zionism. Simonm223 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed. We could just go with NPA and that nobody should insult anyone. this proposed provision is mostly a way to argue that folks who support zionism in particular are a protected class of editors on wikipedia, when wikipedia is built on the principle that all folks are biased and we should debate the article and the material, not the editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This is because editors do not recognize that insulting groups of "Zionists" is not allowed under our current policies. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was a systemic problem where most of the participant here were doing it, sure. Insults range the gambit and hit both sides though, and focusing on one insult of "rabid zionist" to indirectly score a point instead of the whole range of abuse all participants in the space deal with is not productive. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

And, I mean, just today I've had to explain, for at least the third time this month, that it isn't an NPOV violation to cite sociologists and political scientist at Right-wing Populism because a pair of editors believe those two whole academic disciplines are too far-left to be usable under WP:NPOV Simonm223 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1.) Basically agree with @Chess, such a scenario would be a breach of policy in that instance. But the mere fact that other people sometimes get away with violating policy is not a defense to breaking policy yourself or supporting policy not be enforced.

2.) Also, as outlined by WP:PA, the prohibition against ad hominems does not preclude questioning an editor about possible conflicts of interest when applicable, and that is true for democratic socialist/communists as well as Zionism. So it's just important to distinguish the two. Just10A (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

... I don't understand why identifying as a Zionist or as a Democratic Socialist/Communist would count as a COI? we all have biases. folks who claim no political leanings generally seem to have some of the most biases. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It does not represent a COI except in the case where edits are being made to the page of a political group of which said communist or zionist is a member.

IE: an editor who is a member of Likud editing the page on Likud has a COI. Some random guy from New York whose Twitter handle is "LikudFan69" editing the page on Likud does not have a COI. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What would you call anyone calling "killing of all Palestinian males over 13"? Huldra (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, nobody wanted to answer that question, so I have another question: what would you call anyone who called for the "killing of all Jewish males over 13"?

If it was a Muslim doing that, would you react if someone called them a "rabid Muslim"? Ditto for Palestinian: would you react if someone called such a person for a "rabid Palestinian"? Seriously: think about it. Huldra (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: An editor calling for the killing of males of a certain ethnic group over a certain age would be blockable based on our existing civility policy. Insulting said editor on an article talk page would not be the appropriate response.

If an external group or person is calling for that, using the term "rabid Palestinian", "rabid Muslim", or "rabid Zionist" in an onwiki discussion about article content would still not be appropriate. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: no wiki-editor ever called for the killing of males of a certain ethnic group over a certain age; the question is how wiki-editors characterise it. If anyone called such a person (=calling for the "killing of all Jewish males over 13") for a "rabid Palestinian" or a "rabid Muslim"; should we then demand that nobody called another editor "Muslim" or "Palestinian"? This is similar to what you are demanding. Huldra (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: I don't understand the purpose of your analogy. Do you want the ability to say "Zionists are bad" or "Zionism is wrong" on article talk pages? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If there is in fact a Wikipedia editor advocating to slaughter every Palestinian male over 13 and they are not blocked I would very much like to see diffs of this in evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, what part of WP:NPA is this based on? As written, NPA absolutely requires that you be talking about editors - comment on content, not on the contributor. If it's not directed at Wikipedia editors, it might be inappropriate for other reasons, but it is not and will never be a personal attack. I'm particularly concerned about how you seem to want to apply this to this "rabid Zionist" comment, which is plainly absurd - they are not talking about editors, or a group of editors; they're talking about the definition of Zionism on Talk:Zionism. At best you could perhaps say that that's WP:FORUM for using overly emotive wording (as the reply there did), but it's plainly not a personal attack. Is your argument that criticizing any aspect at all of any religious or political view that any editor might have is inherently a personal attack? That seems dangerous. NPA doesn't mean that editors need to be protected from ever seeing things they believe described in critical terms, especially in contexts (like, in that case, the talk pages of articles devoted to those terms) where discussing criticism that might need to be included in an article is the topic of conversation; while that particular comment might be too FORUM-y, the fact is that if there's eg. a consensus of sources that are clearly negative on some aspect of a religious or political view, then editors might have to sometimes read that criticism on talk; and if it's clear-cut enough to be stated as fact in articles then it's not inappropriate to state it as fact on talk. (And this means that some leeway is needed on talk for things that might be over the line, because we couldn't determine where it is if people could get sanctioned just for discussing it.) Again, that doesn't mean that that comment didn't cross the line in terms of being WP:FORUMy or the like, but I don't see how it could plausibly be interpreted as a personal attack on a Wikipedia editor. I think that a more reasonable wording for this proposal would be something like when possible, ideologically-loaded terms such as Zionist or Palestinian should be used on talk in an unemotive manner, and should not be used in a way that participates in rather than discusses disputes over them, but I'm not sure it's necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: What principles would help crack down on the issue then? We should be giving admins at AE more bright lines to work with. Right now, editors making comments critical of an ideology makes it more difficult to constructively edit in the area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Making comments that adherents of an ideology are going to feel is critical of it is sometimes necessary when discussing it on talk. The only issue is when such comments delve into WP:FORUM territory. That is the bright line. People can be as critical of an article's subject as they want as long as it's reasonably connected to improvements to the article. That's necessary, because, again, if that weren't the case it would be impossible to discuss how (and whether) to cover critical material without someone going "you can't say that!" Your proposals here (and a lot of the related evidence) aren't making that distinction, which makes me skeptical of them. I don't think that ArbCom is going to listen to proposals that don't make that distinction, so if you want to crack down on this the key point is to focus on WP:FORUM conduct and to clearly focus on comments unrelated to article content. --Aquillion (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the difficulty in the topic area is because ignoring Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Editors_counselled is the norm. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

<- The topic area has a long history of what could uncharitably be characterized as attempts to extend the colonization project into language space, to limit the use of certain terms like 'occupied', 'settlement', 'colony', 'Palestine', 'Palestinian' etc. It seems to me that getting bogged down in specific word usage on talk pages doesn't really address the root cause. Isn't 'Zionist' just part of a much larger set of labels that people shouldn't be pointlessly applying to other editors in talk page discussions? Isn't a better solution to enforce WP:NOT and WP:TALK more effectively in general rather than have word-specific rules? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, if this is not directed at a specific editor, this is a not personal attack. And even if it is directed at a specific contributor, this is not necessarily a personal attack, given the meaning of the word.My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Any form of labeling of another editor is uncivil and unacceptable, and should be subject to sanctions. If used against sources or whatever it would depend entirely upon the context, and may or may not be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Andre🚐

Proposed principles

WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:RS, WP:BIASEDSOURCES, WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH,

1) Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources: There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources to a point, and there is nothing wrong with having a high standard for sources, but the standards for sources should be applied evenly without accidental cherrypicking by accepting some sources but not others of equal quality, prominence, or of similar credentials. Per WP:NPOV a cross section of minority POVs should be assembled when selecting sources. Sources should not be wholesale considered unreliable on account of bias, but attributed and balanced. If the standard is, for example, academic work by experts in a specific area, and that would exclude some sources but not others, that standard should be evenly applied to similar types of sources on both ends of the polarization spectrum for those issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is it possible to break out "bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable" as a principle? It's in the editnotice at RSN, but I regularly see people comment with something other than WP:GREL based solely on bias. Discussions would be much better if closers were given more authority to ignore "source 'x' is biased therefore it's not reliable". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree Andre🚐 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this as it relates to the case, if we are saying that the reliable sources guideline is insufficient, shouldn't that be discussed there? Or if it is that there is evidence of tendentious editing, then to which evidence does it refer? Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Frankly this is something that continues to be a major impediment in this article space. Material published by universites is erroneously called unreliable or self-published because of POV while the same people often try to argue that local newspapers are unimpeachable. We do need to reinforce that WP:BESTSOURCES should be adhered to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I considered listing BESTSOURCES in this proposed principle and maybe it should be, or as a separate one. For example, I have seen Nadia Abu El Haj used on a page about genetics despite being a sociologist, while a reputable historian Gil Troy is considered not reliable enough. I have seen extensive usage of unreliable sources such as Anadolu Agency and Daily Sabah which I have removed where I find them, while The Jerusalem Post and Jewish Chronicle are proposed for downgrading. Andre🚐 20:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly I think this set of articles would be in much better state if we didn't use any news orgs at all in it. And I don't just mean the pro-Israel ones here. They've mostly become a source of dueling POVs. And meanwhile the Israel / Palestine conflict has attracted significant and sustained academic interest. Simonm223 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  So far my evidence above has to do with academics; not all academics are equally widely cited or reputable, and we have to consider whether they are being cited or reviewed approvingly, and their prominence in the field, but we shouldn't consider sources unreliable due to their politics alone. IMHO, news agencies are generally acceptable sources for the basic facts of an event, and we should systematically cull out the ones which cannot even be trusted for that because they're blatant counterfactual propaganda or have failed enough fact checks. There's a primary source issue with breaking news reporting that isn't a reason to downgrade news agencies, but treat them with caution and some distance. I have long maintained that Fox News, Washington Examiner, and New York Post shouldn't be used for facts about anything controversial, but Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Daily News are reliable. There are also left-wing sources considered unreliable like The Canary, Raw Story and Occupy Democrats. These things can change, as the Jewish Chronicle was recently limited based on perceived ownership issues. Similarly, Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post are generally reliable while there are other pro-Israel sources that probably aren't so reliable. I have also maintained that state-run propaganda media like RT is not reliable. Al Mayadeen was downgraded for these reasons. Sources with biases like Al Jazeera should be used with caution when their bias comes into play, and I believe there's a double standard issue if JPost and Times of Israel are considered less reliable than Al Jazeera (active discussions currently open). I believe the RSP/RSN system works reasonably well if you keep in mind that it's not categorical and it depends on the context, and a rule of thumb is not a rigid formula, but simply a guideline that may be deviated from when one has a good reason or consensus that there's an exception that should be brought to bear. Andre🚐 21:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've suggested barring WP:GREL as a standard here may be one way to help. If we simply reassert that reliability is contextual we can cut down on pointless battlegrounds as various camps try to knock out sources that oppose their side and defend sources that support it. "General reliability" was always a mistake as a concept. In the context of this conflict discussions of general reliability are effectively being weaponized. WP:GREL is not policy. So, as it's causing unneeded fronts in this edit-war why do we keep using it? Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that at all. Andre🚐 20:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: I agree with the principle that reliability is context dependent and that source discussions are being weaponized. However, I believe the best way of achieving that is a better definition of what "generally reliable" means in the topic area. Generally reliable, in my view, means there's no source-specific considerations in which that source might be unreliable. Even a generally reliable source is only contextually reliable.

  As an example, contentious claims should be supported by generally reliable sources of different perspectives. If a claim about Palestinian death tolls is only cited to Israeli newspapers, that would be one of the contexts that could be an exception to the generally reliable rule. It might be appropriate to demand additional sources in that scenario. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. NPOV means looking to make sure minority views are included if not fringe, and summarizing disputes, not taking sides in disputes. It's not for editors to determine through original research or opinions that something like a definition of antisemitism or a view on antisemitism or the Arabs' fate in 1948 makes something fringe. Things are fringe if other reliable sources describe them engaging in conspiracy theories, fabrications or failed fact checks, or other issues like non-correction corrections that render them fringe. Not if they have different views on the historical narrative or different historiographies. Andre🚐 01:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• To elaborate a bit more on this proposal, which if accepted in principle should be split into more separate things as Chess says, I fundamentally see a lack of balance on the part of some of the parties. They will accept sources on one side of the spectrum like Nadia Abu El-Haj, Nur Masalha, etc., and believe that the left-leaning New Historians Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe are actually as far right as the spectrum will allow, and they consider Efraim Karsh or Martin Gilbert to be unreliable because they are Zionists or right-leaning. Being a Zionist or right-leaning doesn't make someone unreliable. I will accept Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said as useful and influential sources, but they definitely have a POV. Similarly, a source like Gil Troy isn't unreliable for being a Zionist. We need to write articles in such a way that we throw a bone to all of these other POVs so long as they are reliable enough for facts, have a reputation for good work etc. Even Dershowitz - Dershowitz is an advocate and controversial, but nobody throws away Dershowitz altogether and claims he is a total snake oil salesman. They just disagree with his more strident positions. But Wikipedia has a rule for what to do in those cases: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Andre🚐 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll comment on a few of the people you brought up, but for any that I don't mention, just consider me as having nothing to say on them.

  I'd consider Efraim Karsh generally unreliable, not because of his political leaning or Zionist beliefs, but because his analyses of history always seem to be put through a nationalist lens. He holds fringe views like the idea that Palestinians left willingly/the expulsion was self-inflicted & his close relations with organizations like Middle East Forum, where he agreed with Lawrence of Arabia's description of Arabs, saying “They were a limited, narrow-minded people, whose inert intellect lay fallow in incurious resignation".

  I know we've already discussed Gil Troy before, but again, he's not an expert in Zionism or the Middle East, he's an American presidential historian with strong opinions. Same principle goes for Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer & a professor of U.S. constitutional law & American criminal law. I don't care if they're pro or anti Israel, but I can't see why we'd cite either of them for anything relating to the topic area other then their personal opinions.

  _{(Not important in relation to reliability: Despite Benny Morris's belief that he is "left-leaning", I don't see how that could be true with his stated desire for Israel to nuke Iran & his denial of the Armenian genocide - I also can't see how Ilan Pappe could be considered politically comparable to Morris)} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  But the point is that Nadia Abu El-Haj is a sociologist, not a geneticist, but we cite her for race and genetics on Zionism. Alam is an economist, and not a Middle East specialist at all. You've articulated a reason about Karsh that still comes down to bias, which is not the same as reliability, and while I agree Troy is not a mideast specialist, he's written a book on Zionism that has been cited by specialists.P.S. It's true that Morris' views have evolved over time on certain issues but for most of his career he was a leader of the left-wing New Historians, the wing that Pappe is also part of. Andre🚐 01:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be specific, Nadia Abu El-Haj is an anthropologist (a rather broad field of study), which relates to human behavior, culture, society, & race. She also seems to work in the field of genetic anthropology, so I think her work can be considered due for Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism (weight is a different story).

  I agree that Mohammad Shahid Alam shouldn't be cited as an expert on Zionism, but I'd like to point out that @Levivich wasn't against their exclusion either, stating in relation to Chaim Gans' inclusion (A philosopher & professor of law) "In the end, I'm fine with either/both being included or excluded, but I do think we should have objective criteria that applies to the whole list." Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  As you can see, Levivich despite their apparent willingness to accept my objection in that message, still didn't remove Alam, including them on the list in their later message: [4] despite Dershowitz not being added, quoting Alam again in their survey of the "best sources" [5] and a much later message to me on my talk [6] I'd rethink the suggestion that "Alam OK, Dershowitz not OK" is some kind of problem. Gans was also removed from the list. Andre🚐 02:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one directly responded to their proposal to include or exclude both of them, so I assume the status quo was kept for a time as both being included.

  Later however, they proposed the removal of several sources, with Gans being excluded & Alam staying. You then replied that you "agree with removing Masalha, Black, Gans, for the reason you stated." but didn't comment on Alam's inclusion. As such, Alam looks to've been left as still being treated as a reliable source for the subject.

  Dershowitz was only briefly brought up in that discussion where their inclusion was rejected.

  Looking at it as a whole, it seems the main issue was one of miscommunication over the span of an overly long discussion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your interpretation of what happened in that discussion and the subsequent discussions. I never withdrew my objection to Alam. I agreed with removing Masalha, Black and Gans, but then I objected to removing Sachar, Brenner, and Amar-Dahl. I also lobbied for including Laqueur and Shapira. The fact that nobody responded to my message wasn't agreement and not a fair adjudication of the discussion. Andre🚐 03:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I did not mean to imply it was a valid conclusion to the discussion, only that it was my understanding of how we got here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but you're defending the double standard for sources and putting words in someone else's mouth. The point I'm illustrating with these principles and evidence is that Alam, a non-expert with a clear axe to grind with his book, is not a best source on Zionism and is just as polarizing as Dershowitz or other advocacy authors on the Israeli side. I wouldn't even compare him to Karsh because Karsh is a tenured and prolific historian with tons of citations. There's a blind spot here if we aren't using the objective criteria that applies to the whole list at all here, since Alam is not an expert, not a historian, a persuasive, even polemical writer. Andre🚐 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  On the topic of El Haj, with all respect, I don't think @AndreJustAndre understands anthropology or how it factors into the criticism of things like genetic genealogical projects. This isn't the same as an opinionated person operating outside of their area of specialty. El Haj writes a lot of criticism of genetic research. It's within her area of expertise. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  The cite to her on the Zionism page which was restored by Levivich and defended by Selfstudier et al., basically hangs a genetic conclusion on her anthropological/sociological i.e. soft/social science work, the dubious claim that there is no way genetically to detect markers of Jewish ethnic groups or that there is something mysterious about the origin of Ashkenazi Jews (arguably, a nod to the discredited Khazar theory), which is directly contradicted by Ostrer, a geneticist, and other hard science work, a false parity being created here. While Falk is also a geneticist, he died in 2019 and his work is outdated. See Xue 2017, Norwich study, Erfurt study, Ostrer 2020, Balter 2010 (old, but a good review versus primary study), as discussed on the talk page and added to the article in a very recent discussion. Andre🚐 21:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I's sorry but calling anthropology "soft science" is pejorative to the discipline. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Anthropologist isn't a "hard science," it's a "social science" or "human science." That's not necessarily pejorative, anthropologists mostly admit it.[7][8][9][10][11][12] It doesn't mean anthropology is all biased or equivalent to the humanities. There are quantitative and rigorous methods in social psychology, but that doesn't mean that those people should be interpreting things like allele frequency or single nucleotide polymorphisms unless they have the training and experience in biology and genetics. Andre🚐 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  What Nadia Abu El-Haj is being cited for though doesn't consist of her "interpreting things like allele frequency or single nucleotide polymorphisms", it's her argument that "the whole enterprise of using genetics to confirm a narrative of origins [is] problematic."

  It's a question of ethics, objectivity, intent, & potential political impact.

  The reason there's controversy regarding using genetics to determine race is because it's a social construct, inherently flexible in nature.

  Her comment, "[t]he Ashkenazi Jew is the most dubious Jew, the Jew whose historical and genealogical roots in ancient Palestine are most difficult to see and perhaps thus to believe—in practice, although clearly not by definition." isn't her questioning their Jewishness, it's her saying that, physically & socially, among Jews, they were the "least other" as they could sometimes still pass for Europeans.

  To use myself as an example, I'm Ashkenazi, but most people wouldn't immediately recognize me as such, just seeing me as "white". If you put me in a group of Mizrahi & Sephardic Jews, I'd stick out like a sore thumb.

  I hope I'm conveying this properly. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think we're getting a little offtopic from an Arbcom workshop and maybe we should take the remainder of this up on an article talk page or a user talk page, but here are some thoughts on your points. This isn't about skin color at all, it's about DNA. You can have the phenotypes for darker or lighter skin and still be mostly Jewish, or Xhosa, Zulu, Bantu, or whatever you are. This could be from albinism, natural variation, environmental factors (e.g. appear pretty European, but can get pretty olive if spend enough time in the sun) or just that those genes were dominant as inherited from that side of one's ancestry. Few people are 100% anything. Since you volunteer that you are Ashkenazi, have you ever taken a DNA test? Chances are, if both of your parents are Ashkenazi, it won't say 100% Ashkenazi, but something in the 90s range. That could be because there's a lot of Sephardic in the Ashkenazi past, or Eastern European, or something else. In my case, DNA tests sometimes classify 1-2% of my DNA as Italian and/or Greek.

  At any rate, this is all newer stuff and archaic claims that there's no "Jewish gene" are missing the point. There are indeed SNPs that occur at a higher rate among certain populations, such as Tay-Sachs-related ones (which came up in the dispute as a MEDRS issue), this applies to other groups also like Cajuns French-Canadians or whatever group that has had a bit of isolation enough to pass mutations within an endogamous group. On the Zionism page, El Haj's being cited for "biological self-definition" ... evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive". Frankly, it's not accurate and an outdated claim that ignores recent research as I've explained already. This is directly contrary to Ostrer, the geneticist here, whom she critiques in her work. I don't mind including El-Haj as an attributed critic. However, removing the attribution to her, contrary to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and also removed the balancing material that I added, creates an NPOV issue. Andre🚐 21:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [cont'd [13]]

  On a point of information here, the field of anthropology straddles expansive disciplines, ranging from sometimes speculative societal and psychological theory through to the genetic nitty gritty of hominid evolution, as a component of biological anthropology, which is very much hard science. The work going on at anthropological institutions such as the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies is not just hard, but cutting-edge science. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF

2) These are core policies and even more important in controversial areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:ASPERSIONS

3) Accusations require specific evidence responsive to the policy or guideline or issue. Throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:-sche

Proposed remedies

Default title format for articles about events in places

1) Articles about events in places (in this topic area) will be named — or if created under another name, moved to — "[Place] event of [date]" until consensus is reached for another title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing this, and hoping other people may wordsmith it or otherwise improve it, with the basic idea that if there is a e.g. P/I-related attack / defense / rescue / massacre at Foobarville this month, the article about it will be "Foobarville event of 2024" (or "...December 2024", "...7 December 2024", depending on how many events must be disambiguated) until there is consensus for a better title, as a remedy to the issue ScottishFinnishRadish identified, that "Articles are created as quickly as possible [because] consensus is needed to change the title once the article is created" i.e. people rush to create articles with POV titles to entrench those titles. (I regard the stupidness of "X event of Y" names as a feature, nagging people to agree on a better/real title and not just leave the placeholder in place indefinitely.) This could be applied only to articles created after the case closes, or to any articles for which there's never been a consensus on what to title them that were created since the start of the current conflict. -sche (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to check if you're right that the stupidness of your suggested names will be helpful, or if in fact it will be harmful. What I suspect will happen, though, is that users not familiar with ARBPIA will be too quick to RM these without enough thought about the correct name, and consider anyone who they think is screwing up a possible consensus to be a problem. This will just add more heat to what is possibly the most heated content area on Wikipedia. Animal lover |666| 07:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think that it might be possible to have a more general rule that doesn't require a specific default name. Something like if there is no consensus on a requested move for an article in the topic area that is less than six months old and has not reached a consensus on its title in previous discussions, the least-emotive title that was suggested during the move should be used, even if it was not the original title and failed to reach a majority. For the avoidance of doubt, terms such as "massacre" and "murder" are considered emotive for this purpose, as is any term that would imply criminality. Likewise, when a requested move that falls under this rule would fail to reach consensus, the closer is instructed to assume that the article lacks a consensus WP:COMMONNAME and to ignore any arguments that relied on COMMONNAME if doing so would produce a consensus, prioritizing arguments based on WP:POVTITLE instead and ignoring COMMONNAME's normal precedence over POVTITLE. Most of the time it is reasonably clear that there is a more-emotive and less-emotive option; and usually, the people pushing for the more emotive option rely on COMMONNAME. Establishing that COMMONNAME requires affirmative consensus for recent articles in this topic area would cut that argument off and force neutral titles in no-consensus situations. (Note, of course, that articles could still have an emotive COMMONNAME, it would just require affirmative consensus, avoiding the first-mover advantage we have currently. Articles could still be titled "massacre" by consensus, they just shouldn't end up with that name because someone who preferred it happened to create it first.) ...of course, having said all that, I'm unsure if this might be ArbCom diving too deeply into content disputes; it might be better to just run an RFC on this and have the community implement it, if it can. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is a reasonable outcome from ArbCom. It explicitly leaves room for a real consensus to override it, it merely names the correct result for a "no consensus" closure among the various opinions made in the discussion. A community RFC is likely to fail here since quite likely several users--on both sides--will see this as a threat to what they want to name pages in this area. Animal lover |666| 10:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Huldra

Due to the perennial "high temperature" in the IP area, arb.com should impose additional "Decorum Rules" for the area: 1) {It is strictly forbidden to call other editors contributions for: "rubbish", "idiotic", "bullshit", or any similar words. This is especially true if the other editors contributions actually is rubbish, idiotic, or bullshit}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

My thinking is from RL: you can tell a genius/clever person that they said/did something stupid, but you should never, ever say that to a stupid person. Huldra (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a principle that should be limited to IP and is already unacceptable in my mind. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not limited to, but I think it would be good if arb.com explicitly signalled that in such a contentious area like the IP, any behaviour which "raise the temperature" will absolutely not be tolerated, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The moment you make a rule in one area, you signal that this specific behavior is permitted elsewhere. There may be a less strict version of the rule elsewhere provided this version is specified explicitly (for example, a 1RR rule in some areas doesn't contradict a 3RR rule elsewhere), but this less strict version must actually be specified. Animal lover |666| 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are different expectations of behaviour between, say, an audience at a football match and an audience at UN. Or behaviour between a 1RR and a 3RR article, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is already covered by WP:NPA. If someone does not respect it in such contentious subject area, this can be a reason for sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Tryptofish

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution

1) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Requested Move, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified from Canadian politics (I changed 3O to RM). I don't intend to create a full set of proposals, but I'm suggesting four principles that I think ArbCom can start from, and go from there. My evidence attempts to show how an RM led to a consensus that improved the pagename, but was hampered by hostility of some editors to having experienced editors who were previously uninvolved offer "fresh eyes". Not socks, but good-faith experienced editors. The community depends on "fresh eyes" to solve difficult content disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. However, the problem here was outlined in the evidence by ScottishFinnishRadish. When an RfC with a large number of participants was concluded with an outcome that did not suit involved contributors, they repeated an RfC soon after and concluded it as they wanted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Personalising disputes

2) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is a pernicious problem and highly disheartening as it occurred quite often in that discussion. I have a fairly thick skin I like to think but this has a real chilling effect on good faith contributions and it persists despite attempts to deal with it. Andre🚐 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Iranian politics. This is a big part of what went wrong in discussions surrounding the RM. One can quote from a source, to make a point about content. There's no need to falsely accuse others of not having read the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough

3) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, absolutely. Andre🚐 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Verbatim from SmallCat. If there's any principle that I think needs to be in this decision, it's this one. I have no doubt that the editors I presented evidence about have carefully studied the sources, and are sincere in their beliefs. That's not enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The SmallCat case resulted in an editor who was right on the merits about categories being banned for incivility, and the case was rightly decided because her personal attacks were disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I said below, this principle needs to make the case. Regardless of whether the sources support your side, policy violations are still policy violations. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Enough is enough

4) When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from GamerGate. (Yes, I know proposed principles 3 and 4 both include "enough", and can be combined in humorous ways.) Let's face it, this is the fifth ArbCom case in this topic area. It won't be enough to pass the motions from the case request period. We don't need a sixth case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur, but will add that Principles 3 and 4 should also be combined in a way that is very serious, and is not humorous, which is exactly what was done in the Smallcat case. An editor who had previously been sanctioned for incivility, in a previous dispute in which she had been right on the details, was disruptive with personal attacks while being right on the technical point about small categories, and it was necessary to ban her. Combining 3 and 4 means that being disruptive while being right may still result in any sanction up to a ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Guerillero

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From PIA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree that something as straightforward and clear as "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." needs to be stated. But it has been stated before and it had little to no effect on the "culture", for want of a better word, of the topic area. Many editors don't seem to believe this rule exists or applies to them, perhaps because it is rarely, if ever enforced. Has anyone even opened an AE case that boiled down to "This editor is violating WP:NOT by advocating on behalf of X"? Maybe it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable, I wonder what it would take to make it enforceable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

National and territorial disputes

2) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) he role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the Arbitration Committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

5) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is there a reason the words "acting in good faith" don't link to WP:AGF? Animal lover |666| 16:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough

7) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Smallcats --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This one is very important. Policy violations are still policy violations, regardless of what side you are on or whether you are "right". QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

8) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From PIA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A very good and very important principle, but I wonder if perhaps something more can be done in this area so that SPAs do not become the dominant force in articles in this subject area, riding herd on their behavior and encouraging non-SPAs to contribute. If this was the language in the previous proceeding it obviously was and will be insufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

9) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

9) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is the second #9. Zero^talk 12:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arbitration Enforcement

10) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions

11) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance (1) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with (2) the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behavior to a minimum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From AA3 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From PIA4 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I prefer the wording of #Enough is enough. "At wit's end" makes it sound like ArbCom has lost its mind. Which may be true, but probably shouldn't be part of the final decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This area has been the subject of four previous arbitration cases, the Palestine-Israel articles, West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, Palestine-Israel articles 3, and Palestine-Israel articles 4.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alaexis

3.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AndreJustAndre

4.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BilledMammal

5.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IOHANNVSVERVS

6.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iskandar323

7.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ïvana

8.1) On 9 December 2024, Ïvana was banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for off-wiki misconduct relating to the topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Levivich

8.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Makeandtoss

9.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nableezy

10.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nishidani

11.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Selfstudier

12.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Snowstormfigorion

13.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Zero0000

14.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IOHANNVSVERVS

6.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

האופה

15.1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

placeholder

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Breaking news moratorium

1) Within the area of conflict, all newly created articles covering events that have transpired within the previous <number> months are prohibited unless there is a strong consensus of the title and scope at <location> after at least 72 hours of discussion. Administrators may enforce this remedy through deletions, blocks, and page protections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Working on a FoF, but after reviewing SFR's evidence the mad dash to cover breaking news is a problem within the topic area. This could be a way of slowing things down. No idea if it is even actionable or a good idea. I am open to suggestions as to where to host the discussions. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support for those articles where a Template:Current would normally be applied. NPOV noticeboard for discussion, presented as a draft RM? Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly worth consideration, but would only apply to new articles. Someone will just add the same stuff to an existing article. Zero^talk 04:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I can see the rationale, but the fact is that some things require immediate coverage. Supposing there's another attack on the level of October 7th, or an assassination of a major figure, a wider outbreak of war, or, god forbid, a nuclear attack or something on that level - there are things we must cover immediately. And there's also, I think, a lot of other articles that are created each day uncontroversially. I think that something that could be invoked after an article's creation where a no-consensus outcome defaults to a "safe" / "neutral" result would work better. For example, have AFDs on articles in the topic area created in the past month or so default to deletion when there is no consensus; or have otherwise no-consensus RMs on recently-created articles prioritize WP:POVTITLE arguments over WP:COMMONNAME ones if doing so would produce a consensus. That way, if someone creates a POV fork it could be quickly dealt with, while still allowing articles that nobody objects to to exist (or where a consensus emerges in support of the article after the fact.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Surprising nobody I'm sure I support a moratorium on breaking news. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What springs to mind is publication of a bare-bones article that is temporarily WP:GOLDLOCKed. Maybe that's too much bureaucracy? Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My reading of SFR's evidence is that the problem is people create articles with POV titles (and content) which are entrenched: no consensus for (or against) them results in keeping them. To me, it seems the solution is to "un-entrench" things, e.g. have no consensus for a title mean the article gets moved to a generic title like "[place] event of [date]". (Non-consensus about whether to include some content is already handled by removing it per WP:ONUS.) POVforks, creation of multiple articles an event, could be handled by having no consensus in a deletion or merger discussion result in a merger to "[place] event(s) of [date]".
Forbidding new articles seems likely to cause coverage of new developments to be coatracked onto other articles: some people will expand Israeli-Palestinian conflict to mention every new event in detail because they can't create a separate article, other people will think Israel-Hamas war is where to put it, and/or the article on whatever prior incident(s) "sparked" it... probably people already do this, but I think forbidding anyone from centralizing such content into its own article will only make that problem worse; centralizing it but at a neutral title seems better. -sche (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This suggestion strikes me as having effectively the same issues as the other you proposed. Izno (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Source prohibition

2) Within the area of conflict, articles from non-scholarly newspapers, periodicals, news outlets, opinion outlets, and the like are prohibited to be used as sources unless they are more than 12 months old. Articles, white papers, press releases, reports, comments, or any other type of work from organizations and outlets self-described as engaged in advocacy of a point of view or political advocacy are prohibited from being used as sources within the area of conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A dead tree rule and a buffer against advocacy groups might also work to slow down the problems SFR raised. This is a nuclear option, but it could work. I would like comments on how to make this more clear. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: By state agencies to you mean organs of any nation-state or just those in the levant? Both sound interesting to me. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"the descriptor eliminates virtually all sources for any article for 12 months" yes, that is the point. Let history be written before trying to write an encyclopedia article about it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would be open to reducing the waiting period to 3 months. The point is to force sieving for sustained coverage beyond breaking news alerts -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This would probably be reported as "Wikipedia bans human rights groups". Are state agencies advocacy groups? They are certainly involved in political advocacy in the conflict. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of organs directly connected to the belligerents, like ministries, defense departments etc., but clarity of thought is not necessarily present for me today it seems. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the descriptor eliminates virtually all sources for any article for 12 months (would sources less than 12 months old included in existing articles need to be removed?). Not opposed in principle to an attempt to restrict sourcing in some way, for example RSN "green" only, no press releases, only expert opinions and so on but would need to be carefully workshopped and not done in haste.Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Prohibiting Wikipedia from covering current events is a complete non-starter. You'll start a riot if you try -- imagine the headlines: "Wikipedia's arbitration committee censors war crimes", etc. But for non-current events, which is most of PIA, WP:APLRS is a great place to start. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Although coverage of recent events is a source of conflict, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a terrible idea. By all means find ways to improve source quality, but this isn't it. Zero^talk 04:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should separate news/opinion/periodicals from advocacy organizations. Two different issues, bad for different reasons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really involved much in the topic area but I think this is a very bad idea. If this passes, we would be completely unable to cover most current events in the area. Our articles on Hassan Nasrallah and Yahya Sinwar wouldn't even be able to mention that they died! I agree with Selfstudier that the idea is good in principle, but needs to be thought out a bit more. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good! Wikipedia should not be "covering" current events. We're not a news service. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we can't cover recent events, but even if we accept that premise, under this restriction we could not say that Yahya Sinwar is dead because all of the news sources are too recent. I also think that this is arguably a type of content ruling, which is outside of ArbCom's remit. If we are going to implement this, it should have community consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• But we do have articles that we need to keep up-to-date. If someone is assassinated, being unable to even say that they are dead in their article is an unacceptable situation. Likewise, while our PIA coverage has issues, I simply can't accept that having no coverage of the October 7th attacks for months on end would have been preferable - especially in articles whose subjects were affected by it! The result of this wouldn't just be a lack of breaking news, it would be articles that we'd be required to leave in overtly, unambiguously incorrect and incomplete states, leaving out things that every reader would know to be true, and leaving in things that every reader would know are now false. That would do serious harm to Wikipedia, IMHO more serious than any of the potential POV issues. We are WP:NOTNEWS but, as NOTNEWS says, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. And more generally, ArbCom's purpose is to resolve conflicts in the topic area - this would effectively be solving the issue by deleting a huge swath of the topic area! --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ooooh, how about three or six months instead of twelve, but you can only use sources about the event written after the three or six month window. That helps with the NOTNEWS, the rush to get the article placed at a certain POV, and helps to ensure WP:SUSTAINED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Would press releases from some non-Levant governments also be considered advocacy? I.e. the incoming Trump administration? Or the ICC UN court? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather see the community make these kinds of decisions about content, than have ArbCom legislate it. There could be RfCs held under CTOP, as was done very successfully in WP:GMORFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this suggestion or similar floated enough times that it probably needs a comment in WP:Perennial proposals at this point, almost always in the context of discussions about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. I think supporting a remedy like this one would be deeply unpopular given its failure to be approved as policy/guideline by the usual policy-making Wikipedians. Even if it were agreed by all that we should be writing about events from a historical perspective (and it isn't, one of the reasons suggestions like this got tossed), such a policy is also deeply impractical: people will use the sources they will and it's even today hard enough to get editors to use just the basic expectation of sourcing (in the norm, never mind the contentious areas). There are things that admins need or want to spend their time on and micro-policing the use of sources from before date X ain't it. I otherwise agree with Levivich's comment: a reliable source consensus-required restriction seems a much better route in this regard and conveniently relies on the machinery already in place to decide whether a source is sufficiently suitable. Izno (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Another related thing that bothers me about this proposal - it would fairly drastically change the focus of the topic area by fiat; in practice, such a broad source restriction is saying "write these articles like this, not like that." And worse, it would do so in a way that seems to directly go against previous consensuses on the matter, and would bar many sources from being used even if there's a clear consensus to use them. That's not how ArbCom is supposed to function - it doesn't make content decisions; and it's supposed to solve problems the community has failed to solve. Overruling community consensus and effectively barring the entire community from covering recent events in a topic area is not within ArbCom's scope, not even for situations that require drastic measures. I'm sympathetic to concerns that opinion-pieces are being overused, but I don't think such a broad bar on otherwise-legitimate sources is within ArbCom's remit. --Aquillion (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that any absolute restriction on posting news is incorrect. Although we tell the public we aren't a news source, we are used as such by many readers. We need to find a way to publish basic information about major newsworthy events within hours, and about anything likely to be notable within days. Animal lover |666| 12:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering the wide scope of the subject area, I don't see how this would be workable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I think if something like this were to be adopted Wikipedia-wide, it'd be very detrimental. For example, in English-language Wikipedia, it'd effect some of the top 10 articles in terms of page views in November 2024, such as 2024 United States presidential election. So if it's bad for Wikipedia-wide adoption, it's probably bad for the subject area as well.

I also agree with Coretheapple. Enforcing this would require so much time. Would the editors and admins be required to check the date of every source being added into the subject area?

I do understand the logic behind this however. Maybe a 3 month moratorium on formal discussions such as RfCs, RMs, etc could be considered? Once a formal discussion such as an RfC is closed, it shouldn't be repeated for at least 3 months, unless the closure is challenged. I'm a bit hesitant to suggest this however, since I don't know it'd effect the subject area. Bogazicili (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly true that RMs are far too frequent. In one article there were two RMs on the same issue days apart. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth being an actual proposal here, but there might be merit in a talkpage navigation infobox that keeps track of all ongoing and closed formal discussions across the topic space, indexing and listing their conclusions in short form. Assuming it wouldn't be so large as to make the talk pages to which it's transcluded glitch out or lag. Safrolic (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Levant Subcommittee

3) A Levant Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee is set up for the purposes of resolving conduct disputes within the area of conflict that are too complex for the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, but do not require the action of the whole committee. The subcommittee is to be made up of at least 2, but not more than 10, uninvolved editors in good standing appointed by the committee for terms not exceeding 2 years. Editors can be appointed to any number of terms.

A consensus of Administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard may refer issues to the Levant Subcommittee for decisions. When a referral happens, a panel of at least 1 arbitrator and 2 subcommittee members (drawn randomly from active non-recused members of its ranks) is formed. The panel has the authority to either reject the referral, conduct a mini-case, or refer the referral to the Arbitration Committee. At the end of a mini-case, the panel should publish findings of fact and remedies based on the evidence presented. By a majority vote, the panel has the power to utilize all restrictions that administrators have access to under the Contentious Topic procedures. Panels may also issue indefinite blocks from the project as an arbitration enforcement action, but only by a unanimous vote. All decisions of the panel are appealable to the Arbitration Committee immediately, but may be rejected by net-4, or to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard after a year.

The Arbitration Committee may, by a majority vote,

• create procedures, timelines, and other policies for mini-cases,
• set up mailing lists, noticeboards, or other communications channels for the subcommittee,
• allow the subcommittee panels to use the clerk office,
• substitute panel members with arbitrators, other subcommittee members, or uninvolved editors,
• and remove referrals from a panel to the full Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My version of Barkeep's proposal. Open to further work shopping --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: The old audit subcommittee was made up of a mixture of arbs and non-arbs. As for the qualifications for membership, I left it vague to allow for future committees to appoint the best editors possible. Most everyone would probably end up being an admin, but there have been several trusted non-admins in the past whom might make good members. Impartiality is assured through the ability to appeal to arbcom immediately and for the committee to substitute members of panels. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I support some form of avoiding the wholesale drama of PIA cases in the sense of dealing with problems as they arise in bite sized pieces, however that might be done process wise.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What are the qualifications for subcommittee members? The term "subcommittee" implies members must be a subset of arbitrators, but the term "editor" implies members of the Levant subcommittee can be chosen from the broader Wikipedia community. I believe, at a minimum, anyone in a position of power to block or sanction other editors should have community confirmation. That would mean the panel would be composed of arbs and/or administrators. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the members of this committee were entirely impartial, then perhaps this may have merit. But we've had instances in which even administrators claim to be "uninvolved" in the subject matter, and may perhaps be uninvolved under a strict interpretation of the rules but in fact have shown clear partiality toward one side or another. Without ironclad assurances of impartiality I don't see such a panel to be helpful, and may actually make matters worse. And yes, having non-administrators would also be problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Carrite

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is Not a Battleground

1) "What Wikipedia is Not" is site policy, including NOTBATTLEGROUND: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is in direct conflict of Wikipedia's policies and goals, as well as Wikipedia's founding principles. * * *

"In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints."

EVERYTHING in this case should flow from this. Civil or uncivil, POV faction-fighters need to be rolled out the door. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Barkeep49

Proposed findings of fact (Barkeep49)

Limitations of Arbitration Enforcement

1) Arbitration Enforcement struggles to handle reports involving the examination of conduct of more than two editors (Barkeep49 evidence and analysis)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is evidence of other limitations of AE that should probably be incoporated into an actual decision, but using this as the FoF to support the thing I'm actually floating below. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed remedies (Barkeep49)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Arbitration enforcement recommendation

1) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to limit discussion of AE reports to the conduct of 1 or 2 editors. Where this is not possible, they are encouraged to split a report into multiple reports, refer a report to another enforcement venue (e.g. SPI), or to refer cases to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AE is an ArbCom venue so ArbCom can tell AE admins how they'd like things handled. This seems like reasonable guidance while still allowing AE admins discrestion (it's not absolute and they are presented with multiple options on how to handle it). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Cf: WP:2WRONGS and especially WP:BTEST. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As long as the splitting is done by uninvolved administrators, as opposed to requiring counter-complaints to be posted (sometimes by newcomers) in a new thread or allowing the general public to split them. Animal lover |666| 06:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Mini-cases

2) Following a referral from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, the Arbitration Committee may decide by four net votes to either handle the referral itself or to establish a mini-case. A mini-case will be structured as follows, unless the Arbitration Committee votes otherwise:

• 3 (ALT: 5) uninvolved administrators will be appointed to serve as a panel. Arbitrators and/or referring AE administrators are eligible to serve on the panel.
• The panel decides on a list of parties based on the AE referral. (ALT: The Arbitration Committee decides on a list of parties when voting to open a mini-case.)
• A mini-case is opened. Normal arbcom procedures regarding decorum and notification will be followed. Panel members will be considered drafters under arbcom procedures.
• In a mini-case there will be 1 week for evidence and analysis of evidence. There will be no workshop.
• The panel will then have 1 week to write a proposed decision.
• A proposed decision will consist of finding of facts and remedy sections (no principles needed).
• Remedies must comply with contentious topics procedures equivalent to those of the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.
• FoF and Remedies which receive a majority of the panel pass (ALT: FoF and Remedies which received a consensus of the panel pass)
• The mini-case is closed one week after posting. This may be shortened or extended by a majority of panel members.
• The Arbitration Committee may replace or substitute a panel member at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with SFR that AE is understaffed. The irony is that if we created panels of Arbs, we would have gotten one step closer to replicating the structure of American appeals courts, and create the classic dichotomy between en banc decisions and panel decisions. (Avid readers will note I think ArbCom should avoid being like a real court). Still, I appreciate the out of the box ideas we're generating here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I like the idea of recruiting a list of trusted admins to call on for these --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may be a terrible idea (it only occurred to me about 30 minutes ago) but I felt it worth offering in the spirit of out of the box ideas. Obviously there are a lot of specific parts here that can be ajusted, but I wanted to get something out for reaction. The core idea is "AE structure doesn't work, so what could". This is intended to be a structure that is known to be capable of handling multi-party disputes while being lighterweight than a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is that there are still more arbs than AE admins, so it may make more sense to just have a small subset of arbs serve on the panel instead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I've proposed it in a way that could go either way - advantage of including AE admin is that they may have already spent time understanding the situation so the learning curve would be shorter. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur, and would recommend that this idea be implemented initially for WP:ARBPIA5, but that it be reviewed for possible extension and application to other contentious topics, and occasionally by the community in disputes at WP:ANI that become intractable or unclosable. See my essay at User:Robert McClenon/Mini-cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by FortunateSons

Proposed remedy (FortunateSons)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Consensus board

Through the invocation of “at wit’s end”, a content resolution board (hereafter: board) is created. If two methods of creating a consensus have failed to create a stable version of an article or there is a comparable kind of long-term dispute, they may be called upon by any editor involved in the dispute or any admin. The board is tasked with creating language or making a decision regarding sources, to create a resolution that is most acceptable to all parties involved. Thereafter, they present a proposal, which is then put to a formalized community discussion and is considered to have community consensus unless there is consensus against its implementation. The board is made up of 5 members: one uninvolved administrator, elected by the community except editors involved in ARBPIA, and two members of each “faction”, elected by involved editors voluntarily (but reasonably) grouping themselves into two sides. Internally, the proposal requires a simple majority, but at least one vote from each faction. Members of the board are elected for one year and may be sanctioned based on private evidence provided to Arbcom if they intentionally disrupt the process. Voters and candidates have leeway when it comes to their category, but grouping oneself in a wholly unreasonable way may be sanctioned by AE or the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

First, I don't think that "at wit's end" is justified, as there is no evidence for it despite some individual admins being overworked. Second, the conditions under which a board would be convened are not precise; for example, disputes over which version is the "stable version" are common. Third, a bad-faith actor could easily abuse this system in several ways. Fourth, a board decision can't be treated as a "super consensus", as there is no such thing and consensus can change. Fifth, I fear that most cases will end with the vote of the admin being the one that counts. Sixth, there is a severe contradiction between the admin on the board being "uninvolved" and being able to cast the deciding vote on disputed article content.
Some of these problems could be fixed. For example, the questions to be answered could be defined more objectively as "RfC/RM questions that are closed without consensus". But currently I don't see how to fix everything. Zero^talk 05:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This would have the effect of making a super-RFC from an arbitrary and potentially easily gamed subset of users, where the sole determining factor in the outcome is what, a single uninvolved administrator being able to convince one single person on a "faction" (with no clear definition as to what constitutes membership thereof -- see the preliminary statements of this very case for examples of editors denying they're a member of the various "factions" or in some cases, questioning the delineation of those factions themselves)? It could easily be abused and doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's principles of consensus despite being a "consensus board". WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is explicit that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Even being "at wits end", I don't think one small subset of editors giving another small subset of editors (specifically including involved users) unfettered content control of an article is aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia. In order to even approach being a workable proposal -- and I'm not even sure the idea is achievable even with this change -- it'd need to be 100% composed of uninvolved editors (I'm not sure it matters whether they're administrators or not). You can't let the foxes inside the henhouse. And even then there probably need to be additional safeguards to prevent gaming.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am very much in favour of a centralized board for resolving broader disputes in this area. However, this isn't the way to do it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Safrolic

Proposed remedies

Shared arguments in formal discussions

"All seven of you will share a microscope, one bench, and one grade that I will average" - Prof. Kane, Community 3x03

1) An optional new format is created for formal discussions in this topic space, where those discussions are (or are likely to be) marked by canvassing, tendentiousness, or team behaviour. It may be designated during opening or imposed by an administrator. Potential outcomes are constrained. Each option is represented by a single argument, which is collaboratively edited by supporters of that outcome. With limits, editors may discuss each option's argument in a separate section. Only an uninvolved admin or panel may close the formal discussion. Closers will only consider each option's final argument, without giving weight to the discussions or to strength of numbers. The full procedure is posted on a dedicated page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposing statmement: This is an unconventional proposal under WP:WITS, intended to preserve the principles of consensus decision-making based on strength of argument in an area where the guidelines protecting those principles are insufficient to the task. I first sent this proposal to an arb privately to ask if it would be appropriate to share. I was encouraged to post it here in hopes of spurring productive discussion.

The 1,000 word limit per editor applies a welcome constraint to single-editor bludgeoning and endless reading in formal discussions. However, it has drawbacks. It isn't effective at preventing tag-teaming- in fact, when this happens it'll actually restrict the ability of an editor to respond to all of their critics. It creates further incentive to canvass for additional bodies for the team. It still leaves closers in more contentious discussions with many thousands of words to read, none of which are necessarily the best forms of their arguments. It still pits editors directly against those who disagree with them, promoting battleground behaviour. Further, including the opening statement in the limit gives openers an incentive not to write neutrally.

This proposal is for a new contentious topics RfC format, designated by the opener or imposed by an uninvolved admin. Following the general theory in WP:ATM, once the options are laid out, each option has one shared argument, with its own separated discussion section below.

- Editors are expected to only directly edit their preferred option's argument, which itself may only be [1,000-2,000?] words. (This doesn't have to replace the per-editor limit in the discussion sections.)

- Editors may request an extension to the word limit specifically for the purpose of sharing lists of quotes or excerpts from sources, when appropriate and necessary.

- Any editor may comment in any discussion section for the purpose of helping its editors improve that argument, i.e. to point out a logical flaw so it can be corrected- similar to an edit request.

- Editors who support the same outcome are expected to work together to build the strongest case for that outcome.

- Editors who support a substantially novel outcome may ask an admin to start a new argument for that option and list it in the discussion question/proposal text.

- Editors who support a slight modification to an outcome are suggested to convince supporters of that outcome first.

- Openers are expected to fairly present all expected options, neutrally, in good faith. Editors supporting an outcome may agree among themselves to neutrally relabel that option.

- An admin imposing this format on a discussion which is already ongoing (for example, during a relist) is expected to perform the necessary technical operations/reformatting and ping existing participants to notify them of the change.

- Closers are instructed not to give the discussion sections any weight.

This:

- disincentivizes bludgeoning and tag-teaming, because an editor will only tire out the people agreeing with them, with the effect of having less help crafting their outcome's argument

- encourages less-involved editors to share input, since they won't be bludgeoned

- negates off-site canvassing and vote-stacking; emphasizes strength of argument

- limits the amount of reading closers have to do, but puts more responsibility on closers to make the actual decision.

Drawbacks:

- This essentially codifies supervoting. Closers will judge between single arguments, likely of roughly similar length, without giving weight to how many editors supported or contributed to those arguments.

- Editors who support multiple options may strongly wish to edit more than one argument. It's possible this could be allowed; the focus on making each argument stronger and only contributing to preferred options will still make it much easier to identify editors contributing disruptively or in bad faith.

The problems associated with supervoting are why it's so important that this discussion format is only closable by uninvolved admins or panels. However, limiting the amount of text to read/threaded arguments to parse will hopefully make it easier to find people willing to make these closes. Structurally, the whole thing might involve transcluding the arguments to the main talk page from a dedicated discussions page set up for that formal discussion. Having dedicated subpages would be somewhat resource-heavy, but this format is already only appropriate in specific, highly-contentious topics and situations. Safrolic (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm worried this would exacerbate the issue of battleground behavior by "officializing" divisions between editors into competing "teams".

Besides the drawback you've already mentioned of supervotes, I imagine it'd also increase the amount of close review requests, with a lot of the arguing initially avoided with this method, moved over to the reviews instead. The amount of oversight required here might also be too taxing on admins with the few willing to work in this area already being worn thin as it is. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, and identifying reasonable concerns. I would like to stress that editors self-select the argument they support, as now. This format is intended for use where battlegrounding and other disruptive behaviour is already happening, and the goal is to minimize uncollaborative interaction between editors who fundamentally support different outcomes. By minimizing these interactions, team and battleground behaviour becomes more difficult to do in the first place, and easier to notice and shut down. The role of a babysitting admin becomes more like a clerk here at Arbcom- saying that an editor shouldn't comment in a specific location, granting word extensions, identifying whether an outcome is distinct enough to warrant its own argument. Admins don't need to watch a hostile discussion between two editors stretch out, waiting for it to cross the line into personal attacks- they can just say 'you support different things, split up and work on your own arguments separately.' So, while more oversight is definitely required, the mental/executive energy requirement for individual oversight actions is significantly lower.

Regarding close reviews, most review requests involve disputes over whether closers correctly weighted the vote counts vs the strength of arguments. Under this method, the vote counts don't exist. A review request depends on convincing reviewers that an admin or panel incorrectly weighted the strength of individual arguments themselves. This is a somewhat higher bar to clear. Safrolic (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This proposal resembles some of what was done in WP:GMORFC, where editors proposed what they hoped would be the wording that was "best" from their POV perspective, then the community evaluated the proposals in a well-advertised RfC, and a panel of three admins determined the consensus – all under what was then DS. I like the idea of taking something like the proposal made here, and expanding it to include a community RfC to choose between the proposals, with admins determining the consensus of the RfC instead of choosing the best proposal. There are practical limits to how frequently one can do this in the PIA topic area, but it could be one good way to use the WP:CONSENSUS process to break the back of intractable disputes, while bringing in "fresh eyes". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned this would lead to:

1. Confusion over what would be a single outcome vs. similar outcomes.
2. Straw men having too much influence over what some outcome looks like.
3. Edit warring over outcome details.

Animal lover |666| 03:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply in order.

1. This is a solid concern, and warrants explanation in a dedicated procedure page. Openers are more likely to underestimate the number of discrete options than overestimate, so in most cases it would be up to an admin to determine on a case-by-case basis following a request from an editor. I think it would be rare that an admin would need to step in and consolidate options presented upon opening. I think where this needs to happen, it may warrant a complaint about gaming on the part of the opener, giving extra argumentative space/options to their preferred outcomes.

2. I'm not sure what this means. Are you referring to how editors wouldn't be able to directly call out straw men or other fallacies in threaded mode? If so, I should clarify that an option's argument can devote space to pointing out fallacies in other options. It would consume some portion of the word limit, just as it would consume an individual editor's word limit in threaded mode.

3. Edit warring in a collaborative argument on a talk page is significantly less disruptive than warring in name space. Editors who generally agree with each other are also, I think, going to be more willing to follow BRD with each other in their respective discussion sections. Editors who don't can be straightforwardly warned to go back to their own corner.

Safrolic (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, that is definitely an innovative way to run an RfC. It's very significantly different than what I'm proposing, though. The GMO RfC involves many different proposed wordings, many largely similar, and every responding editor replies individually with their thoughts on each proposal. They do restrict direct replies to any other editor, but that's to any other editor; no collaboration between editors who largely agree with each other is supported. Closers still had to read 88 separate comments, and consider vote counts in their close. And, I have no evidence to support it here, but I think the sheer number of different options likely biased many votes towards the first option in the list- just like how political candidates with last names starting earlier in the alphabet have a better chance of being elected. So, this RfC format did reduce disorganization and battlegrounding behaviour, but it didn't reduce incentives for off-site canvassing, vote stacking, sockpuppetry, etc. I'm not sure how significant those were as issues back then, but they are clearly perceived as significant in this topic space. Safrolic (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I came across and wanted to share this tweet thread by Aaron Bandler, an investigative reporter at the Jewish Journal and one of the off-site people writing about the ARBPIA dynamics here on Wikipedia. He wrote it a few hours before I posted this publicly, but I didn't see it until an hour or so ago. He quotes an interview with Katherine Maher, writing, Important to remember that the WMF has no editorial control over Wikipedia articles. But whether Maher realizes it or not, she is highlighting the flaw with Wikipedia’s consensus model: when ideologically-motivated editors have the numbers in their favor, they are able to insert their “truth” into articles under the guise of neutrality. As I’ve explained in this thread and elsewhere, consensus on Wikipedia is a combination of numbers and argument quality over site policy. Numerically, consensus requires a supermajority (usually at least two-thirds) of editors involved to agree to a change, otherwise the status quo content remains in place. When you consider the fact that editors supported a near total ban on using the “Hamas-run” qualifier when citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers by a 3:1 margin and that around 2/3’s-3/4’s of Wikipedians are left-leaning, then you see why Wikipedia reads the way that it does. (He quotes further threads and articles by him which I'm not linking to.)

Offsite, the numerical disparity between editors who support one side vs the other side is perceived as responsible for driving the choices on how content is presented, regardless of the strength of the arguments themselves. This is one of the most frequent criticisms Wikipedia is getting on this topic right now. This format would address that concern without any direct rulings on content. Safrolic (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting idea that can be used in many RfC in various subject areas. Of course each option can be supported by multiple arguments, but editing them by multiple people who are happy to collaborate with each other can improve the quality of the arguments. Unfortunately, I am afraid this is not going to work for contentious subjects, such as these ones, when people strongly disagree with each other, and the entire purpose of an RfC or another discussion is to resolve a conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a good proposal for a trial. RfCs work best when there are multiple contradictory options that can't be compromised between. Any kind of additional structure for discussions is something I support, since greater structure generally makes conflict more productive in my experience. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Chess: A trial first would be safer than just passing it. It is supposed to be an option for an administrator to impose this format on an ongoing discussion, for instance at relisting. Decisions aren't due until the 11th- are there any contentious-looking discussions happening at the moment arbs might want to trial it on? Safrolic (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've previously discussed having an ongoing pros and cons summary of options (see User:Isaacl/Community/Content dispute resolution toolbox § Pros and cons summary of options and User:Isaacl/Community consensus § Mitigating issues with Wikipedia's consensus tradition) to help make discrete progress towards a greater understanding of the options, and to make the overall discussion more efficient and effective. The interested parties have to co-operate to make this approach work, but I think it can save time in keeping everyone up to speed and thus avoiding repetition. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Requesting WMF assistance

1) The Committee requests that the WMF dedicate funding to hiring uninvolved experts for statistical research and analysis of source disparities, editor conduct, and other issues in the PIA topic space. The committee requests that this research be compiled and reported publicly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Research of Wikipedia by outside groups has a glaring, central flaw; they aren't intimately familiar with how Wikipedia works or the tools available to investigate it. The World Jewish Congress report made many criticisms, which could be proven or discredited with on-wiki technical expertise. And here on Wikipedia, the most useful pieces of evidence on the structural issues in this space are the compilations and statistics a few editors, like Barkeep and BilledMammal, have put together. There should be more of that kind of structured evidence instead of just assorted piles of diffs to sift through. By experts, I'm talking about people with degrees in statistics and computer science, not people with backgrounds researching the conflict itself. Safrolic (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Formal discussion library

1) A centralized library of all past and ongoing formal discussions for all articles, sources, and other topics in the ARBPIA space is to be compiled and maintained, listing their conclusions and participants. Navigation box templates are to be created for the same purpose, to be copied directly to the talk page section when a formal discussion of the appropriate type is initiated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't know if this needs to be a formal proposal, but it simplifies things if it is one. Safrolic (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA 6 scheduled

1) A sixth ARBPIA case will be opened on 1st September, 2025.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Let's be realistic here, there's going to be another one. We might as well know when it's coming. And doing it sooner rather than later could help keep it from being so overwhelming. I picked the date to be longer than 6 months, but not so long it goes over Christmas. Safrolic (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be ongoing supervision of the subject area. Whether it should be in that particular form I don't know. It's an interesting though somewhat despairing idea. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Vice_regent

Proposed remedies

Panel closures

Any uninvolved admin, or at least 10 involved editors, may request that a particularly complex discussion be closed by a panel of uninvolved editors in good standing (as opposed to a single closer).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we go with this, panel closures will need a higher bar for review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guerillero I agree. We can say that such a closure can only be appealed at WP:AN/WP:AE and I expect most requests for review would likely be rejected, short of some serious misconduct (eg an admin turned out to be a sock). As an arb, do you have any concerns for adopting this remedy? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some mechanism is required in closures. This one may have merit and it is a creative idea. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Mediated discussion

For particularly complex or long-running content disputes, neither "regular" discussions nor RfCs are likely to be productive. Instead, we should have moderated discussions like Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. In the run up to the WP:ARBIRP case, Vanamonde93's attempt to moderate discussions (by repeatedly steering the parties back to examine the sources) was one thing that worked the best. The discussion moderator would do, among other things:

• break down the dispute into smaller chunks, to avoid the problem of WP:WALLOFTEXT
• collapse or remove discussions that veer off-topic
• redirect discussions as necessary (eg if two users start bickering about the reliability of the source, the moderator would tell them to take this to WP:RSN)
• remove from the discussion any users who are unproductive (misrepresent sources, demonstrate a lack of understanding of our WP:COPO etc)

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good idea. Thank you for this. I apologize that I'm only beginning to weigh in now on some of these proposals but RL has intruded. Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Aquillion

Proposed findings of fact

POV forks and titles

There have been constant disputes over potential POV forks (ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence, Aquillion's evidence) and inconsistent titles (FOARP's evidence, Zero0000's evidence, Boksi's evidence) in the topic area. A contributing factor to this is the first-mover advantage; because the default outcome of an AFD or move is to retain the status quo, an article retains its title and focus unless a consensus is found to change it, even if those things clearly never had consensus to begin with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry in the topic area

Sockpuppetry has been a major source of disruption throughout the topic area. (Nalbleezy evidence, Makeandtoss evidence, Huldra evidence, Selfstudier evidence, Butterscotch Beluga evidence, Sean.hoyland evidence, David A evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Self-explanatory, and supported by so much evidence that it seems almost unnecessary to point to individual parts, not the least of which are the two sockpuppets who were parties to this case. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Efforts to defend accused socks at SPI have been unproductive

When a user is brought to SPI under suspicion of being a sock, people who broadly share their views have often defended them; in doing this, they have frequently defended actual socks and have disrupted investigations that could have caught them more quickly (Nableezy evidence, especially the hatted section here).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Unemotive default titles for new articles with no consensus on their title

If there is no consensus on a requested move for an article in the topic area that is less than six months old and has not reached a consensus on its title in previous discussions, the least-emotive title that was suggested during the move should be used, even if it was not the original title and failed to reach a majority. For the avoidance of doubt, terms such as "massacre" and "murder" are considered emotive for this purpose, as is any term that would imply criminality; in cases that fall under this criteria, avoiding a potentially POV title should take priority over an assertion of WP:COMMONNAME that lacks a clear affirmative consensus supporting it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The intent here is to avoid, or at least reduce the impact of, the rush to create articles after an event and the "first-mover" advantage where a potentially POV title is chosen and then becomes hard to dislodge because the default outcome of a RM is to retain it and the topic area is rigidly split. Since it only takes effect when there's an actual discussion, it avoids creating too much red tape; and since it only affects no-consensus outcomes, we can still call things massacres and the like when the sources do, it just requires that we have a clear affirmative consensus to use a more emotive or potentially POV title, rather than going with whoever happened to create the article first as the default. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how likely this is to wind up in the final decision, but on the chance that it does, I think it might be good to delineate more narrowly where, within the overall PIA topic area, this would apply. Obviously, you have proposed this in the context of "massacre" and "murder" and the like, which I think is reasonable, but I'm not sure how well this would work in something like the move discussions in my evidence, about the page that used to be Zionism, race and genetics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that if there isn't a clearly less POV / emotive title then it just doesn't apply (although if the proposal below had been in effect at the time and it fell under it, that article would have gotten deleted a few days after it was created when the AFD failed to reach a consensus.) This does give the closer perhaps a bit more discretion than usual, but part of the purpose of the last bit is to provide a more clear-cut standard for when it applies - generally speaking, in the sorts of discussion this is meant to apply to, you have one side arguing that something is the WP:COMMONNAME, and other people are saying that it isn't and that it violates WP:POVTITLE; that makes it pretty clear that everyone agrees one particular title is potentially POV. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is a good idea but I think it should go one step further. I think that POVTITLE has been pretty much disregarded, and that the final decision should underline the need to comply with that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Normally, POVTITLE is essentially overridden by WP:COMMONNAME; so people who want to use a POV title will naturally argue that it's the common name (and we can't just ignore them because, well, sometimes they're right.) Hence why part of this suggestion is to basically instruct closers to ignore COMMONNAME arguments that lack consensus if doing so would produce a consensus. That said, a related issue is perhaps that people in these discussions make COMMONNAME arguments that rely on asserting that a topic is only covered by name in WP:BIASED sources or sources that, at least, are from one perspective - eg. citing something that overwhelming coverage in Israeli or Arab press calling it a massacre and minimal coverage discussing it elsewhere. Another potential angle to address this could therefore be to state that COMMONNAMEs in the topic area require coverage across a broad range of sources and perspectives, and should never rely primarily on sources from one "side" in the conflict. It's a tricky suggestion because it's important to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE; some things are legitimately one-sided. But it's probably fair to say that most aspects of this conflict are not so one-sided that we ought to be relying only on one side's sources for article titles. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Even if something is the most common name in reliable sources, COMMONNAME is clear that it only usually means that the "common name" is the one that best fits the 5 actual policy-mandated criteria for article naming. In contentious topics, it is less likely that a common name will meet all of those criteria. Furthermore, the article naming policy cannot overrule WP:NPOV - NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia. As NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. So if there is a conflict between COMMONNAME or any other part of the article titles policy page that would purport to require us to use a POV title for an article, that part of the naming policy is inherently invalid or at a minimum is incomplete/improperly worded.

  On a personal note, things like this are one reason I find it extremely difficult to even try to participate in contentious topics - especially the Middle East. People cherry pick policies (like COMMONNAME) ignoring the pillars of Wikipedia, and because they have "consensus" to violate that core NPOV pillar, they get a free pass to do so... even though every global consensus and NPOV itself say that shouldn't happen. I think that this step - requiring that if in dispute a neutral title is used until the "dust settles" - is a good first step in going back to enforcing our core pillar of NPOV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of recently-created no-consensus articles within the topic area

If there is no consensus on WP:AFD for the deletion of an article in the topic area that is less than six months old and has not reached an affirmative consensus that it should exist in previous discussions, the article should be deleted (or merged or redirected, if discussion favors those over deletion) instead of kept.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Similar to the above, the idea is to reduce the frequency of WP:POVFORKS by requiring affirmative consensus for new articles to exist in the topic area, while limiting it to ones that are actually challenged at AFD (and fail to produce a consensus there) so people can still be bold about creating them and to avoid adding too much red tape. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a last resort proposal. Unfortunately, in this topic area, we need last resort solutions. Animal lover |666| 10:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI encouraged to investigate all allegations of sockpuppetry in this topic area thoroughly

Because of the frequency of sockpuppetry in the area by experienced sockmasters, admins and users at SPI are encouraged to investigate any allegations thoroughly and to avoid dismissing any out of hand, even if initial evidence is insufficient. Similar, editors are encouraged to bring suspicions of sockpuppetry to SPI promptly and resolve them there rather than elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This doesn't overtly urge a lower checkuser threshold because that wouldn't necessarily help against most of these socks, who are mostly skilled at evading it, and because that suggestion is dangerous for privacy reasons; the hope is that people bringing suspicions to SPI would lead to expanded investigations (not just by checkusers, but by users compiling WP:DUCK evidence) that would catch sockpuppets sooner. Of course, encouraging people to bring mere suspicions to SPI also has some risk, but the hope is that this would also serve to contain such allegations; being accused of being a sock isn't fun but it's better to have it go straight to SPI rather than to have it constantly clouding interactions on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Third-party defenses at SPI are barred within the topic area without clear evidence

For socking that primarily occurred within the topic area, third parties are forbidden from defending others against accusations of socking at WP:SPI, or to raise questions about the motivations of the accuser there, unless they have clear and decisive evidence to contribute. Comments by uninvolved third parties that clearly violate this restriction may be removed immediately by any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At least based on the evidence, attempts to "defend" other people at SPI are rarely constructive and are contributing to a reluctance to use it. SPI isn't like AE - while there is some interpretation of WP:DUCK evidence, an editor is ultimately a sock or they aren't, and administrators are capable of analyzing the available evidence on their own. Likewise, administrators don't need editors constantly reminding them that the person bringing a SPI in a fraught topic area is probably at odds with the person they believe is a sock - it can be presumed, and isn't itself meaningful unless the request is so weak as to strain good faith. When that is the case, administrators are capable of realizing it on their own. SPI is meant to be a place for forensics; it's not a debate. Also note that the "there" in the bar against raising questions about the motivation of the accuser is load-bearing; people could still be eg. brought to ANI or AE if they're clearly abusing SPI, the point is that such accusations shouldn't disrupt the SPI case itself. And of course, in case it needs to be said - uninvolved admins handling the case are not third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this proposal doesn't prevent evidence from being added; this actually does have the potential to help the administrator who handles the case. Animal lover |666| 18:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Makeandtoss

Sock identification:

1-Acknowledge that a widespread problem of sockpuppetry exists in the topic area and raise awareness of common tactics: first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge there is one, this would help good faith editors and admins in the topic area maintain vigilance against apparent sockpuppets and their disruptive and provocative behavior.

2-Enable checkusers to conduct checks with a lesser threshold for behavioral evidence as this evidence-collecting process is time-consuming and it gives socks enough time to abandon their about-to-be-discovered accounts and create new ones.

3-Maintain public information lists for sockmasters such as the one on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100, which would help editors and admins identify socks more easily.

Sock Prevention

1-Mandate that all sockpuppetry contributions be deleted would be a good deterrence against this kind of behavior, especially as they find it easy to insert manipulated content and disrupt again through use of new accounts.

2-Disallow any editors in the topic area from using proxy or VPNs; already WP does not allow VPN use when I tried using one myself a few years ago, mandating first a type of approval. However, this does not seem to extend to all types of VPN or proxy. Not an expert in this field, so I am not sure how this could be done exactly.

3-Increase the threshold for ARBPIA editing to at least 90 days and 1500 edits as this would increase the burden on sockpuppets and limit their disruption.

Preventing disruption

1-Mandate that talk page discussions such as RFCs and moves can only be voted on if the user had edited that article at least a month prior to the discussion's opening as this would make it more difficult for canvassing especially ones made by socks.

2- Enforce strict sanctions on editors that stonewall which is a very disruptive and provocative behavior aimed at delaying or obstructing consensus building.

3- Enforce strict sanctions on vexatious complaints and comments as it seems aggressive finger-pointing by socks is a commonly-used tactic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Most of these are good, but the first "preventing disruption" suggestion is an obvious nonstarter. The entire purpose of RFCs is to seek outside opinions. Additionally, it would backfire - socks tend to aggressively edit pages in this topic area (because that's their entire reason for being here.) Contributions in RFCs from casual people with only minor interest in the topic area actually reduces the impact of socking; the more real people who contribute, the less impact the voice of an individual sock has. I believe the VPN issue is technical; we can't auto-detect all of them. (But we could probably block people immediately at SPI the moment it's clear they're using a VPN without obtaining pre-approval, even if we don't know the sockmaster, and encourage people to bring possible socks for that even if they don't know t he sockmaster. I don't know why we don't do the former already, though - there may be a reason.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As to identification #3: The problem is that with some sockpuppets, we actually count on them not knowing some of these identifying signs or that we know them. The question of creating LTA pages is a difficult one, balancing the need to help identify them vs. the need to prevent them from changing tactics to the point of making these pages more useful to them than to us.

Sock Prevention #1: This only works if we have a full and permanent ban on reinstating their edits. So if they tag a page for speedy deletion, if we ever delete the page they won. If they revert vandalism, either we remain with a vandalized page or they won. If one sock reverts a sock of someone else, one of them won.

Sock Prevention #3: Could be handled by a hidden category, an edit filter to detect all additions and removals of this category (to prevent abuse intended to add or remove the special protection), and filters which prevent users who are too new from editing these pages. Unfortunately, like protection, it will take time for a new page to get this special protection.

Disruption Prevention #3: Care must be taken to distinguish between good-faith incorrect reports (these should be ignored unless a single user makes a whole lot of mistakes and few correct reports, where a partial ban against these reports should be made anyway) and vexatious ones. Animal lover |666| 19:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ident-1: My understanding, which isn't very deep, is that there's 5-6 persistent and prolific sockmasters in the topic area.

Ident-2: Nothing wrong with this- I'd go further and suggest that any participation in the topic area should leave any editor eligible for checks. Heck, have a script run every few weeks to collect every active username and re-check them all. It's really not that invasive, given how few people can see the info and how strictly they're bound not to share it. That said, it's known that CUs are evadable.

Prevent-1: I thought about this a few weeks ago when I was looking at all the pages created/maintained primarily by CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk · contribs). It is a good deterrent for a sock to know that their edits will all be reverted. However, this is gameable. Sockpuppets are always here in bad faith, pretending to be what they're not. It's not so much of a stretch to think that a sophisticated sockmaster could decide to pretend to be partisan on the opposite side, so that their eventual (deliberate) discovery removes information they ultimately don't want in articles. Not against this, I just reflexively ask myself whether/how policies can be subverted.

Prevent-3: I have a conflict of interest here: if arbs did this, I would no longer be able to comment in this space (for another ~600 edits, which will probably take me years). According to xtools, this would impact one other user who's commented on this page besides myself. My thoughts are that socks are always here in bad faith, and they're willing and able to use bad faith tactics to reach the required threshold. Puppets know or are taught how to quickly make edits. And gaming itself isn't strictly forbidden (like I think it should be). When I was going through User:BilledMammal's complete list of ARBPIA activity statistics, I noticed that User:EntropyAndVodka had gamed their way to ECR, but my report of it was closed with no action. If gaming isn't being strictly forbidden, punishable by block or indefinite topic ban regardless of when it's discovered, raising this threshold will almost exclusively hit editors who are here in good faith, making helpful and substantive edits. I actually didn't think this was the main purpose of ECR in the first place; I thought it was primarily to make sure that new editors who have no idea what they're doing aren't learning in contentious areas where the inadvertent disruption they tend to cause will be worst.

Disrupt-1: This mandates local consensus overriding general consensus.

Disrupt-2: full support. Safrolic (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Zero0000

Proposed findings of fact

The state of the topic

The number of editors of ARBPIA articles increased by 70% following the 7 Oct 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war. The number of edits increased even more. Although a greater number of edits naturally brings with it a greater number of disputes, when adjusted by the number of edits the evidence of disputation decreased. Overall, there is no evidence that the state of the topic is worse than usual or that dramatic measures are called for. Zero^talk 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(As proposer) As explained in my evidence, the hard facts here are supported by objective data. There are many who claim that the sky is falling, that there is a crisis of some sort, that everyone is tearing their hair out, etc etc. No evidence for these claims has been presented, and that's because there is no evidence. It is impossible for a topic that is hotly disputed in the real world to not be hotly disputed on Wikipedia; one has to look at how the disputes are handled, not their mere existence. A look at Talk:Zionism and its past few archives shows two phenomena of note: (1) there is a constant stream of editors new to the topic coming in with the same demands that have already been discussed at great length, (2) the number of sources introduced by the regular editors is extraordinary (I don't think I have seen anything like it before). I don't know what can be done to improve (1), but I know how to make it worse: remove the regular editors who keep a lid on it. Moreover, these are the same editors responsible for phenomenon (2). Zero^talk 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There is a significant gap between how some people think and talk about the topic area and the actual state of the topic area. I assume this is deliberate in some cases. There are certainly efforts by partisan actors in the media and on social media to manufacture a crisis, but most editors probably lack the social conditioning required to fall for such obviously partisan and manipulative efforts to interfere with Wikipedia's processes and content, and ArbCom certainly shouldn't fall for it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Increase EC protection

Confirm that ARBPIA articles can be EC-protected even in the absence of "ongoing disruption".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(As proposer) About 2/3 of all editors who make edits to ARBPIA articles do not have the EC bit. Although they make fewer edits on average than EC editors, their edits on average are way more disruptive. However, the admins at RPP frequently refuse EC protection unless disruption is "ongoing", even though it will happen again sooner or later. Since EC protection only serves to prevent forbidden edits, this should be a no-brainer. Zero^talk 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Bogazicili

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and Wikipedia is not a blog

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Article talk pages are intended for discussions to improve the articles. These discussions include formal processes such as RfCs, and Requested Moves. In general, editors should base their contributions, such as their !votes or comments, on reliable sources and/or relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decision making process in Wikipedia is Consensus

Consensus can be achieved using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Explicit guidance on closures

Add explicit instructions on top of the pages in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict that closures of formal discussions should be based on strength of the arguments, based on reliable sources and/or relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is already how it's supposed to be, but explicit guidance wouldn't hurt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The aim of this is to try to minimize the impact of socking, canvassing, or WP:FORUM-like comments. Bogazicili (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a good idea. However, I think that Arbcom needs to play a proactive role in closings, in dealing with appeals when editors feel that NPOV has been disregarded. There is at the current time no accountability for Wikipedia content, and there needs to be in this subject area or we're going to come back for PIA100 in a few years. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The general approach should be that the most costly (in terms of volunteer hours) proposals should come after existing procedures. WP:Closure requests and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should proceed normally. But maybe another process after WP:CLOSECHALLENGE can be considered. Bogazicili (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposals by Coretheapple

Proposed principles

Zero tolerance for WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY violations

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars." It applies to all editors across the board, and in all subject areas, especially in controversial topic areas, and should be strictly enforced for all editors regardless of their length of service to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Self-evident, but the evidence and workshopping, and some of the parties' conduct in this arbitration, makes it necessary to state this explicitly. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Kenneth Kho

Proposed remedies

1) Create PIA-specific sock tracking pages for sock masters engaging in LTA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop talk page, especially Haofa that got us here turned out to be Icewhiz sock and he does not even have an LTA page, there should be dozens of PIA LTA pages. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

2) Create PIA-specific sock tracking pages for content subject to LTA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop talk page, example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sock targets for easier identification. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

3) 1RR or 3RR exception for content subject to LTA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop talk page.

4) SPI clerks encouraged to dig deeper into allegations where initial evidence is insufficient but has some basis. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop main page.

5) Use delegations to resolve difficult content disputes to encourage cooperation and engagement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop talk page.

6) Better content remedies, such as 72-hour moratorium on breaking news page creations, using panel closure,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As discussed in workshop main page. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Genocide of indigenous peoples edit war

SFR's evidence re Genocide of indigenous peoples edit war involves 15 editors, only 3 of whom are currently parties to this case, and only 1 party made more than one revert:

Added	Removed
Mar 31: Qhairun	Magnolia677
Mar 31: Te og kaker
Mar 31 - May 23: stable (~2 months, >40 article edits during this period)
	May 23: האופה
May 23: Ivanvector	ABHammad
May 24: RFC #1 started
May 27: Dylanvt	O.maximov
May 27: M.Bitton	האופה
May 27: Dylanvt
May 27 - Jun 3: full protected
Jun 21: RFC #1 closed as no consensus
	Jun 23: ABHammad
Jun 23: M.Bitton	ABHammad
Jun 23: Skitash	האופה
Jun 24: Bluethricecreamman
Jun 24 - Aug 5: stable (~1.5 months, >50 article edits during this period)
	Aug 5: BilledMammal
Aug 5: Selfstudier	Moxy
Aug 5: Bluethricecreamman	CapnJackSp
Aug 6: RFC #2 started
Aug 6: M.Bitton	האופה
Aug 7: Bluethricecreamman
Sep 25: RFC #2 closed as consensus to include
# of editors who added: 8	# of editors who removed: 7
# of editors who are parties to this case: 1 (Selfstudier)	# of editors who are parties to this case: 2 (האופה, BilledMammal)
Editors on the list more than once: 3 (Dylanvt 2x, M.Bitton 3x, Bluethricecreamman 3x)	Editors on the list more than once: 2 (האופה (4x), ABHammad 3x)

There were two periods of stability: Mar 31-May 23 (>40 edits), broken by האופה, and Jun 24 - Aug 5 (>50 edits), broken by BilledMammal. See evidence page for diffs. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am a party. I apologize for responding in the "others" threaded discussion below. I forgot to post my messages in the "parties" area. I'm not moving them now to not disrupt the threaded discussion that exists below, but if a clerk or arb wants to move them, or wants me to, or anyone else wants to, that's fine by me. Andre🚐 01:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There's a pattern here of editors, even very experienced ones, using reverts as their first (sometimes only) tool in dispute resolution, and needing to be forced into discussion:

• The May 23-27 edit warring involved 6 editors, of whom only one (myself) made any effort to discuss the changes rather than edit-war. The other five continued edit warring until the page was protected, and only then participated in the RFC.
• The Jun 23-24 edit warring, also set off by ABHammad, involved 3 of the same editors plus 2 newcomers (one of the earlier 6 had been blocked as an Icewhiz sock), and again did not stop until the page was protected again (this is missing from the chart). This time two (out of five) made it to the talk page prior to protection to participate in a discussion which had already been going for some time.
• On Aug 5 the edit war was needlessly started again by BilledMammal, who prior to removing the section had never before edited the article nor its talk page, and then only did so to demand that somebody else start a discussion. Selfstudier did, to their credit, and that second RFC seems to have resolved the issue.

We know that these kinds of disagreements aren't solved by reverting, they're only solved by discussion, but we still needed to fully protect this page more than once for discussion to move along, and several of the editors involved got into new edit wars over the same content repeatedly over the four-or-so months that this debate was ongoing. I'm responding to the ping in the chart above and haven't been following the case to know what it is we're exploring, but this is what I see as the problem here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that two more of the accounts in the table above have now been identified as Icewhiz socks (making 3 total), but I'm not going to redo my analysis. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

8/12 removals were by now-blocked socks. Like most edit wars in this topic area, this one was mostly socks on one side vs. mostly random editors (not "regulars") on the other side. Levivich (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Selfstudier, M. Bitton and Skitash are regulars, Bluethricecreamman and Dylanvt have thousands of edits in the topic area so if they aren't regulars, they're at least experienced editors. Andre🚐 21:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Good faith editors v. socks, is the point. Levivich (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that based on the findings of SPI, the sock farm was on the one side of this. However, we don't have any reason to believe that Moxy, BilledMammal and Magnolia677 aren't good faith regulars (BilledMammal is a party, so if you have evidence of his bad faith you could present it), and while I don't recognize CapnJackSp, he appears to have a clean history and hasn't even been made aware of ARBPIA CT, therefore would qualify as a "random editor." Ivanvector points out that the sock farm was on one side of this, as we might expect since part of the reason to have a sock presumably is to use it in the same dispute, right? However, I don't see in evidence that "most edit wars" in the topic area are like this one, you could present evidence to that effect, or I suppose we could add more edit wars to the analysis to see if it's true. Andre🚐 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The only edits I can find from CapnJackSp relating to the topic from around that time was their participation regarding "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential" & their working with BilledMammal to file an RFC against Al Jazeera. As such, I'm assuming they found the article because someone they were collaborating with at the time was editing there. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be out of scope for this case. But I list dozens of examples of such edit wars at the Icewhiz SPI, e.g. the Zionism edit war over "colonization," the Israel edit war over "various causes," the Palestinians edit war over "indigenous" and "native" ... all of those are just socks on one side, good faith users on the other (this Genocide of indigenous peoples edit war is also at that SPI).

Besides the edit wars, there are also the talk page discussions: Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks#Requested move 21 August 2024: almost all opposers are now blocked socks (except 3); Talk:1982 Lebanon War#Lede: just socks on one side; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth: almost all socks voting delete; Talk:Israeli apartheid#Tags: almost all socks on one side; Talk:Samir Kuntar#Large scale revert: 3 socks v. 2 good-faith editors.

We could go on like this, but none of this is in-scope for this case, because this case isn't about the problem of socking in the topic area. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem of socking should definitely be addressed too. I don't think the answer is "edit war because some of the others are probably socks", "ignore civility because some of the others are probably socks," or "abandon AGF because some of the others are probably socks." What would be helpful is actual ways to further reduce the impact of sockpuppets on the topic and discussions. I've been stewing on this, but there aren't a lot of good answers. Moratoriums after RFCs/RMs, automatically triggered RFCs when an edit war begins? I feel like that might have a positive effect on establishing consensus and locking content for a while. That should reduce the burden of multiple discussions opened over and over on the same points. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

How many of the editors in the topic area have turned out to be socks in general? Especially when a dispute or RFC shows up? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the first RfC, I would have personally challenged the closure. There are sources that explicitly talk about genocide against Palestinians in the context of genocide against an indigenous people [14]. Maybe the second RfC was too soon, but the reason for this is that there are no clear rules on how soon an RfC can be repeated. Editors should also be reminded that WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an option, rather than repeating an RfC.

Like ScottishFinnishRadish said, maybe a moratorium on repeat RfCs can be considered? 3 months for ongoing events (newer sources coming in) and 6 months for established events (unlikely to be lots of newer sources coming)? Bogazicili (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Article titles/RMs/Massacres

Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Requested move 3 November 2024 An ongoing "live" example.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"? Recent NPOVN discussion.

User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics Multiple discussions in Preliminaries. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by FOARP

The evidence shows a pattern of editors repeatedly favoring or disfavoring the use of the word "massacre" in RM discussions. An important but unanswered question is why those editors did so. There is nothing in policy against editors tending to agree or disagree with one another. Nor is there anything in policy that is automatically against editors holding consistently to a particular opinion about that word. Before ArbCom can conclude that there is coordination and/or POV-pushing going on, it is important to know whether or not these RM !votes were made in a contentious or disruptive manner, and whether or not the views expressed in these !votes spilled over into anything like edit-warring or battleground-y talk page comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FOARP writes but then in Nuseirat/Tel al-Sultan they abandon that "weight"/"naming" standard and !vote based on statements by officials and the fact that the "M" word is being used by sources at all. They're facially civil, but still POV pushing, engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in order to "score points". FOARP neglects to mention that my Nuseirat !vote is for a bolded aka not for the article title nor that I have not as yet !voted in Tel al-Sultan RM, therefore making a battleground accusation without evidence. Idk what score points means here. Also see my post above #Article titles/RMs/Massacres. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat my statistical evidence that, regardless of how chosen individuals voted, the numerical outcome is very strongly towards "massacre" in the titles of articles where Israelis died and against articles where Palestinians died. This lends support to Nableezy's point that an inconsistent standard is being applied and that what looks like POV-pushing is actually NPOV-pushing. Zero^talk 11:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

When an editor references past discussions that resulted in a consensus and attempts to follow that same argument that is not inconsistent. That is attempting to have consistency. When the finding of consensus was based on arguments on victim count for one group, my arguing that this same argument should stand regardless of the ethnicity of the victims is somehow transformed into POV pushing rather than countering the bias in language that is pervasive in this topic? That’s absurd. Treating these discussions as though they occur in a vacuum and acting as if past findings of consensus shouldn’t play any role in future arguments is an attempt at enforcing that systemic bias, not countering it. nableezy - 15:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Massacre table

Massacre? Page Victim BilledMammal Iskandar Ïvana Nableezy Selfstudier Iohannvsvervs Makeandtoss CONSENSUS Netiv HaAsara [15] I — N — — — — — Y Nahal Oz [16] I — N — — — — — N Nirim [17] I — N — — N — — N Nir Yitzhak [18] I — N — — — — — N Holit [19] I — N — N N — — N Kissufim [20] I — N — — — — — N Nir Oz [21] I N N — N N — — N Engineer's Building [22] P N Y — Y — — — N Nuseirat refugee camp [23] P — — — — Y — — Y Al-Tabaeen school [24] P — Y Y — Y — Y N 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation [25] P N — Y — Y — Y Y Tel al-Sultan [26] P — — Y — Y Y Y — Total "yes" 0 2 3 1 4 1 3 3 Total "no" 3 7 0 2 3 0 0 8 Total yes/no for I 0 yes / 1 no 0/7 0/0 0/2 0/3 0/0 0/0 1/6 Total yes/no for P 0/2 2/0 3/0 1/0 4/0 1/0 3/0 2/2 Match rate 66% (2/3) 66% (6/9) 50% (1/2) 66% (2/3) 83% (5/6) — 50% (1/2) Source: FOARP's evidence Key: "Victim" = who was the target of the massacre/attack (Israelis or Palestinians) Y = "massacre" in the title (which may be a support or oppose vote depending on whether the proposed move was to or from "massacre") N = "massacre" not in the title Match rate = same as AFD: how often the editor's !vote matched the outcome

Just because an editor votes in favor of "massacre" for some articles and against "massacre" for other articles doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of problem because some events are described as "massacres" by reliable sources, and other events are not. For example, Selfstudier voted 4x in favor of "massacre" and 3x against "massacre" but matched consensus 6 out of 7 times -- that's not bias, hypocrisy, or any kind of problem, that's accurately reading sources and almost always matching consensus. Similarly, Iskandar's match rate is 6/9. For the others, it doesn't tell us much if an editor is 1/2 or 2/3. We would expect any editors voting in any RMs to have match rates like 1/2 or 2/3 for such small sample sizes. I don't think this evidence shows any kind of problem with how these editors voted in these RMs. Levivich (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The point I'm making here is the grounds on which they were !voting shifted 180 degrees depending on whether the subject was "I" or "P", and it clearly didn't matter to some of the parties what the PAGs said about what the page-title should be - they decided what the title would be based on "I" versus "P" and then drafted the argument from there. Where the PAGs favoured their pre-determined conclusion, they went with the PAGs, where they didn't , they went with arguments of exactly type that they had previously disparaged.

POVWARRIOR behaviour is still disruptive, even when it is facially-civil, because it creates a battleground situation on Wikipedia, drives inconsistency, harms NPOV, and is ultimately the behaviour of editors who are WP:NOTHERE, but instead seek to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are editors on here who apparently like to play a POV game where the points are scored by getting the "best" article names for their "side" and the "worst" ones for the other "side". We do not have to provide a platform for the players of such games indefinitely.

It is incredulous to simply say "people don't have to like a word or dislike a word" as if that was all they were doing. It is also naïve to essentially say "people being inconsistent is nothing wrong" when it's very clear that this wasn't just random forgetfulness or inconsistency, but one that always leaned towards "their" "side".

For reference I hadn't even read the preliminary statements page when I decided to post this, and to say the least I had no knowledge that BM had decided to make a big thing out of it - it's just something I've seen closing RMs. I could have done the same on page moves between "airstrike" and "attack", which are also a locus of POVWARRIOR behaviour. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Where the PAGs favoured their pre-determined conclusion, they went with the PAGs, where they didn't , they went with arguments of exactly type that they had previously disparaged. Evidence of that sort of conduct would very likely be useful, but it would require evidence that is clearer than what has been presented so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: What happens in practice is most editors don't !vote at all if their current interpretation of PAGs disfavours their predetermined conclusion. This also drives inconsistency despite not being punishable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that some of that has in fact been added; I should have checked the Evidence page again before posting, sorry. Anyway, more of that would be important. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eladkarmel

"Another case" was in fact, a sockpuppet, so was Galamore & OdNahlawi.

This case by Makeandtoss does not read as an attempt to block them, but is instead a "Clarification request" in regards to what can be considered a potential CoI.

מתיאל was blocked for "WP:NOTAFORUM/WP:SOAP, offensive language, and continuing to argue personal views rather than sourced material after being warned"

Dovidroth was topic-banned for canvassing.

I also don't see how Owenglyndur currently being blocked for violating copyright policy is relevant to this case.

Correlation does not imply causation. These editors were reprimanded or blocked for breaking policy & their nationality and/or political opinions were not a factor.

I will close this by noting that the comments categorized as "aggressive remarks" don't refer to Israelis. While there may be a considerable overlap between Zionists & Israelis, they are by no means one-and-the-same & should not be considered interchangeable terms. One's nationality does not determine their ideology & assuming otherwise contradicts their right to individuality. Furthermore, their is a difference between criticizing Israel the country, Israel the people as a whole, & Israel's settler community in specific. Whether the listed remarks properly convey that difference is up to interpretation, but I'd like this to be taken into consideration when reading them nonetheless. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Many reputable organizations such as universities are coming to consider pejorative usage of "Zionist" as targeting an element of a protected class[27][28] and while Wikipedia is not a legal system, and does not ensure any kind of free speech or civil rights, we do have policy which roundly condemns targeting contributors based on anything about them personally which includes their identity or beliefs. Without commenting specifically on Eladkarmel's evidence as a whole, although I do think it should be evaluated closely, I agree with Chess that personal comments based on being a Zionist should not be allowed any more than any other personal comments that are already not allowed. Andre🚐 22:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Zionism is the belief that Israel should exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people. It's a proxy term for Israelis that believe in an Israeli nationality. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a very narrow perspective of a nuanced issue. Just like every nation, not every citizen of a country is a nationalist & not every Zionist is Israeli.

To say "It's a proxy term for Israelis that believe in an Israeli nationality" is prejudging others' intent rather then actually engaging in what they're saying. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: Using the term "Zionist" as an insult should be unacceptable onwiki. Likewise for complaining about "Zionists" on article talk pages. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Most of the usages of the term Zionist also occurred on Talk:Zionism. Clearly participants in the discussion on both sides have strong feelings about Zionism and have participated in debates that delve into WP:FORUM discussions (many of the comments directly above this seem to reflect that), but many of them were good-faith attempts to summarize the sources on the topic; the fact is that many high-quality and highly-negative sources on Zionism do exist. No matter how strongly individual editors may disagree with those sources or feel that what they say is morally and ethically wrong, they're not so WP:FRINGE that we can forbid people from summarizing them on the talk page about Zionism. There are in fact eg. many high-quality sources that describe Zionism as a form of colonialism; it is reasonable for editors who believe those are the best sources available to summarize the topic from that perspective on its talk page, especially in the context of discussing how to cover it in the article (as opposed to WP:FORUM digressions.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

POV forks

There are multiple sets of evidence about the repeated creation of POV forks, and problems at subsequent deletion or merge discussions. I would think it would be helpful to highlight where individual editors did things that got in the way of reaching consensus at the deletion etc. discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Chess

This isn't an article and we don't necessarily have to follow WP:RS, and also obviously private evidence cannot be disclosed, but it would be good to have an indicator of the degree of confidence we should have in these reports in Jewish Insider, Piratewires, and the algemiener.com. I think it would also be good to briefly call out specific sections of these articles that we should pay attention to. The reports are being used about one party at present but contain information about other parties that potentially might be entered in to evidence. For examples the Piratewires report seems to say that some of the parties are effectively WP:SPAs, that they tag-team, that the issue extends beyond PIA into Iranian affairs. They also contain information that may not be relevant to this discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Anyone can see that there is a Discord icon at the bottom of [29] that links to [30]. Anyone can click on that link and then join the discord. Back over the summer this was reported on several sources and at the time, out of curiosity I did join the discord and I can say that at least according to my testimony, yes, the general information seems to be accurate that there was a discord channel operating during which some offsite canvassing was happening, and I believe more-or-less as much has been admitted by the participants and corroborated by the evidence provided by Chess and BilledMammal and the restored-deleted pages. Andre🚐 21:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There are many additional editors who were part of this offsite influence campaign. Ivana is the only one who has been publicly identified as such by several news articles, which is why I'm asking that she either be explicitly vindicated or admonished by ArbCom. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned that this specific instance of off-site collaboration is being highlighted when I think everybody knows that off-site collaboration is rife on both sides of the aisle here. For instance there's plenty of documentary evidence, including videos, of pro-Israeli groups doing in-person workshops on how to coordinate edits on the topic. And, frankly, not hiding at all. But instead we're going to focus all our attention on leaked discord logs published in a source as obviously unreliable as PirateWires? With, what, one editor who seems to have any confirmed involvement? Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to post evidence of pro-Israeli groups and their influence campaigns. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess - two comments 1) since Ivana is now indef'd, is this moot? 2) Are there other parties in your evidence that should be discussed? FOARP (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  @FOARP: There's no more parties that should be discussed based on the publicly posted evidence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ScottishFinnishRadish

One point of my evidence is to demonstrate that the issues plaguing the topic area (battleground editing, edit warring, casting aspersions, personal commentary) are widespread to the point of being the standard behavior. Editors without much social capital, mostly new editors, are blocked and topic banned for behavior that established editors slide on. When we consistently allow behavior that gets new editors sanctioned from established editors we're setting the scene for a feedback loop where established editors continue to fall below the expectations set at WP:CTOP, other editors see that this is the behavioral standard in the topic, and the whole topic becomes worse for it. Established editors argue at length with other established editors, trading barbs and aspersions, and edit warring. New editors end up topic banned, sanctioned with 0RR, or blocked for following the standard of behavior set by those with enough social capital to avoid sanctions or make it too time consuming to sanction. This has also caused other established editors to avoid the topic area. Until everyone is held to the actual CTOP standard, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and refrain from gaming the system, it will remain the same as it is now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I broadly agree with Tryptofish's analysis of this evidence below. Andre🚐 21:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If (some heavy lifting here), we (more heavy lifting) consistently allow behavior that gets new editors sanctioned from established editors is the problem, then isn't the solution not to do that? Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The main reason that new editors are sanctioned more often is that they don't know how to edit within the rules. I don't accept the claim that experienced editors get away with things that new editors would not get away with—I'm sure it happens sometimes but I don't see the evidence that it is common practice. There is a problem with the treatment of new editors, but it isn't this. Over the years the average penalty for 3RR/1RR violation or similar has increased from very short blocks to long blocks or topic bans. This acts to remove editors who would otherwise turn out to be valuable when they properly learn the ropes. Penalties for such infractions should start small and only get more severe when small penalties don't work. Zero^talk 04:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza Genocide RM example in SFR's evidence completely omits relevant context. First, the whole "no firm rules" and "WP:IAR" arguments. But more importantly, there is a huge difference between editors participating in subsequent RMs because prior RMs ended with "no consensus", including "no consensus with no prejudice against a new RM," and RMs that ended (1) with consensus, that was (2) upheld at WP:MR, (3) only two weeks earlier. If there was ever an RM that was worth a quick-close, by an involved editor or anyone, it's the RM that seeks to undo a consensus that was upheld at MR just two weeks prior, which was the case with "Gaza genocide RM part deux" in SFR's evidence. Closing that RM was the right move, it was the action that stopped disruption. Instead, SFR (and other reviewing admins at AE) caused the RM to be re-opened and then they let it run for three days before SFR closed it again. Look at the RM: 3 days during which two dozen editors participated, almost unanimously opposing the RM for the obvious reason that we just had an MR two weeks prior. That is the disruption: three days, two dozen people's time wasted, to get to an obvious point, and for what? It's sad to see that even at this late stage, with the benefit of hindsight, SFR brings this up as evidence of disruption by editors, as opposed to an example of AE totally failing to do what it was supposed to do: stop disruption, and in fact, in this case, AE re-starting disruption. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is borne out in the Genocide of Indigenous peoples edit war tabulated by Levivich above. The accounts involved in that edit war (discounting the Icewhiz sock) have an average account age of 8 years 7 months, and average edit count of 32,913 (as of when I started typing this edit). These aren't new editors: the youngest is more than a year old, and the average editor is a Senior Editor II (the 12th step of the Wikipedia:Service awards). Five have been here longer than a decade. These are editors who should be setting examples, and, well, they are, but bad ones. We've been sanctioning new editors very consistently for a very long time; we need to start shifting the burden of proper conduct in the direction of the more experienced editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on my more limited experiences in this topic area, what SFR says here hits the nail on the head. This is exactly what I hope ArbCom will be able to focus on. When I got involved in editing one page in the topic area, I was anything but a new editor. But I found that some (not all!) of the established editors treated any input from someone who wasn't part of the "in group" as worthy of contempt. As long as that happens, it's incredibly difficult for the community to provide "fresh eyes" to solve problems. I really don't think the core problem underlying this case is about pro/anti-Israel or pro/anti-Palestine POV pushing. This is a problem of conduct by specific editors, and I hope that I will be able to provide evidence about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My current strategy for the area is based around making explicit statements of principles that editors can focus their arguments towards. I think we need to be much more proactive in creating principles of acceptable behaviour, and we should do so in collaborative venues that don't require blocks. To be specific on the RM issue, the fact we allow editors to argue that an event is or is not a massacre based on their own personal threshold of violence is part of the reason those RMs are so contentious. Likewise, at WP:RSN, I'm trying to prevent the argument that a source's definition of antisemitism is a reason to declare it as unreliable. Those arguments almost never end in consensus because they are proxies for one's stance on the underlying conflict.

I believe more specific guidelines will force editors to abide by a higher standard of conduct. Those guidelines can be established through consensus if they are broadly applicable and do not benefit a specific party to the conflict. However, we need a process for adding those guidelines to the area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this piece of evidence is most important and very much damning. Importantly, it involves more people than the parties to this case. Something must be done here, I am not sure what exactly. This has always been absolutely the worst subject area to edit. Why? I guess some people have very strong political views and struggle to enforce them at all costs. This is my reading of the Evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is pretty off-putting (to put it diplomatically), however, these articles are not in any way typical, they are among the most contested articles in the whole IP area. And there has been lots of off-wiki writing about them, eg:

• Wikipedia Editors Add “Gaza Genocide” to “List of Genocides” Article, by Aaron Bandler, November 3, 2024, Jewish Journal (archive)
• Wikipedia Editors Add Article Titled 'Gaza Genocide' to 'List of Genocides' Page, Rachel Fink, November 7, 2024, Haaretz (archive)

The chance is that the off-wiki writing has generated lots of traffic (and editors) to the articles, editors with strong opinions (but not so much knowledge). (As we have seen in another wiki-article given much off-wiki attention: Zionism) Huldra (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Established editors should be held to a higher standard, since they should know the rules. However, they are generally considered "more valuable" to the community, which tolerates more from them than from newcomers. This is a central problem here, it was the central issue regarding Fram, and is probably plaguing other toxic areas of Wikipedia. We need a solutionto this issue which doesn't require intervention on the part of ArbCom or the Founation. Animal lover |666| 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does knowing the rules mean you should be held to a higher standard? Why does not knowing the rules mean you should be held to a lower standard? Everyone should be held to the same standard--and learning/knowing/following the rules is part of that standard that everyone should be held. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we believe in prevention, not punishment. As a result, ignorance of the rules serves as a limited justification for not following them, as having indications given to you of what the rules are, and links to get more details, are likely to reduce violations. Animal lover |666| 16:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The problems with this are threefold. First, the area is plagued by sockpuppets; extending too much leeway to new users makes it easier for sockpuppets to get away with misbehavior. Second, the topic area is the intense focus of external canvassing, which means that we get the same people, breaking precisely the same rules, for the same reasons; giving them too much leeway rewards that behavior (and would make the topic area even harder to deal with because of the flood of misbehavior that would lack a quick response.) Third, and most importantly, the topic area is under a 30/500 restriction precisely because we have already agreed that it is not a place where inexperienced editors should be editing. If people are still claiming ignorance of the rules, that is an indicator that they probably rushed in at the bare minimum of 30/500 without the socialization and learning that the rules are supposed to require, which means they ought to get a quick boot. There are countless other, less high-pressure areas of Wikipedia where new users can edit while learning the ropes. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, I think that the main reason newer editors tend to get sanctions when more experienced ones don't is just a matter of knowing where the red lines are (in particular, when a new editor gets an almost immediate ban, it's usually because of WP:3RR / WP:1RR violations, which even the most problematic experienced editor is going to know to avoid; or for blatant WP:NOTHERE + WP:SPI-with-an-axe-to-grind behavior. An experienced editor who looked like that for their entire history here wouldn't have lasted long enough to become an experienced editor in the first place.) Look at some of the things I submitted as evidence of issues from new / inexperienced users - if an established editor behaved that way repeatedly they would 100% get blocked, the point is that, first, they know not to; and second, the sort of people who can't resist behaving that way don't last long enough to become experienced. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was an RfC about it. I was not there, but would vote "do not include". This is an unusual list because it lists the historical events in the reverse chronological order, so that the "Gaza genocide" appears on the top. I assume that was not intentional. The selection criteria are also not entirely clear. But this is something probably to be decided by community, rather than Arbcom. I agree this is biased, but the bias comes form mainstream external sources, even such as CNN, BBC, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• One very important quibble: I don't think it's a matter of social capital at all; it's a matter of knowing policy and procedure and, especially, knowing where the red lines are. As evidence, look at the sockpuppets - several families of socks have been extremely successful, with repeated sockpuppets lasting a long time despite highly aggressive editing that dives straight into serious conflict. Obviously a new sockpuppet lacks any sort of "social capital"; yet (at least from the ones we know about) they rarely get sanctioned prior to being caught as sockpuppets. It's not a matter of some cabal of editors covering for people, or even WP:UNBLOCKABLES protected by Wikipedia culture; the fact is that for most people who get blocked or topic-banned, it happens because they crossed some red line that could be pointed to with clear diffs in AE or ANI. An experienced editor, who is highly familiar with policy, is unlikely to cross such red lines. And IMHO this distinction is very important when considering resolutions because we have to consider whether longstanding users who are frequently brought to AE but who avoid sanctions do so because they actually know and follow policy and therefore haven't actually violated anything, or whether it's a WP:CPUSH situation where catching people who cross red lines is easy but there's other important policies, lacking such red lines, that we're failing to enforce. (In fact, I suspect part of the reason people often get a "gut feeling" someone is a sockpuppet or not a new account is when a new-ish editor is editing with a clear POV but somehow manages to perfectly avoid all the red lines that could result in sanctions.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Reinforcing this, the two most egregious WP:CPUSH editors I'm aware of are both relatively isolated editors. They may have one or two collaborators but, for the most part, they're not WP:UNBLOCKABLES who have friendly relationships to admins - they're people who seem to have endless time to spend arguing on article talk pages, who carefully cite every single policy and a good sampling of their favourite not-exactly-policy-but-don't-say-it essays, and who, everyone knows, would just be entirely exhausting to try and get blocked because of the resultant text-walls and circular arguments that any attempt to take them to AN/I or AE would cause. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Successful sock farms share this quality - that they use an excess of time and the fatigue of volunteers having to deal with their nonsense - to protect themselves from immediate consequences. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What I see wrt Genocide of indigenous peoples is that 8/12 removals were by now-blocked socks. And people want to remove those long-time editors who fight the socks? Go figure, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100% with SFR and commend him for presenting this very important and vital point with such clarity. I hope that Arbcom can cut through the static, disregard the pushback and act in a fashion that deals with the issues he raises here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence submitted by Tryptofish

I want to provide a more detailed commentary on my own evidence. Looking at this case broadly, there are problems with newish accounts and socks, and problems with determined and persistent socks. My evidence isn't about that, and I'm not commenting on that. I'm focusing on experienced editors who might be making it more difficult for the ongoing disputes to be solved, and more difficult for WP:AE to deal with that. What I say here also fits closely with Crossroads' evidence and with ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence and analysis, just above.

First, it's important for ArbCom to understand that, for experienced editors, this really isn't about pro-/anti-Israel POV-pushing, no matter what narratives have emerged (see the "What this is not" section of my evidence). I think that Nishidani and Levivich, and probably other named parties, are sincerely trying to be NPOV, and are very careful to read and attend to high quality sources.

Instead, there seems to be a persistent problem with discussions becoming hostile to experienced editors coming in, without previous involvement, with fresh eyes. I saw mention of an AfD on an editor's talk page, and I was sincerely concerned about the pagename Zionism, race and genetics (cf Race and intelligence), and that's how I got involved. I can very much understand how involved editors can get exasperated with persistent socks, but it shouldn't be that hard to see when good-faith editors show up, who are clearly not socks. There was no need to snarl at me and other editors who were looking for a better pagename. There was no need to complain that I hadn't read the sources, when I was correcting close paraphrasing from those sources, and so had obviously looked at them. And if you really think about it, the RM was not about sources. Sources could support the original pagename, and sources could support the proposed new pagename, and there's no source that says "no, you can't rename this". There were reasonable, good-faith, reasons to rename the page. Even the editor who created the page under its original name was friendly to discussing a move (although he opposed the specific proposal that actually got consensus). So how does the community solve such content disputes? By holding discussions like RfCs or RMs, that bring in fresh eyes. But it felt like editors who were not already part of an in-group were dismissed as if we were socks or trolls.

And I suspect that underlies, at least in part, how the more disruptive new accounts or socks are able to throw AE discussions off-track, by pointing to such battlegrounds, as a way of complicating what should be straightforward AE complaints. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with the 2nd part, not the first part. I would say it can both be true that editors aren't being neutral and balanced or have blind spots leading to unintentional cherrypicking, and also what you said about their behavior. Andre🚐 23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur (with the below message by Tryptofish). I've been regularly met with hostile and aggressive replies accusing me of lack of expertise, knowledge, or not having "done the homework." '[22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)] Sorry I keep forgetting to put this in the "parties" area. Andre🚐 01:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I see a pattern emerging of Levivich accusing opponents (or outside views) of not reading the articles (or sources cited therein) of which they comment on as a way to discredit them[Tryptofish evidence + Crossroads evidence]. Both examples were replied to harshly and did absolutely nothing to positively contribute to those discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So one instance per year (Tryp's evidence is in 2023, Crossroads is in 2024) constitutes a pattern? And in both cases, the editors I was talking to hadn't read the sources. That's a serious problem. I stand by it: arguing that an article isn't properly summarizing the sources, while not having read the sources, is disruptive. That Zionism, race, and genetics argument from last year was ridiculous, with editors claiming that combining those three topics was SYNTH, when there was a plethora of academic works talking about the intersection of those three things. Similarly, show me an example of Crossroads either citing a source or specifically discussing a source at Zionism, as opposed to saying things like "if the sources say..." without ever looking to see if the sources say (and ignoring citations and quotes from the sources that directly answer whether "the sources say..."). Levivich (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to reply to Levivich's comment. If this is something that I encountered in 2023 and Crossroads encountered in 2024, then this might well be a pattern. In my evidence, I provided three diffs of Levivich's comments about this. The first was directed at Andre, and was in a discussion that was not so much about the pagename, as about including issues about Palestinians on the page. (That's about the same content where I provided diffs in my evidence about me adding content that was copied within Wikipedia, for those following the details.) Levivich makes a point in that diff, that I can agree with, that Levivich had presented a quote from a source about Palestinians, that Andre was, perhaps, not adequately recognizing. But Levivich's rudeness to Andre and personalization of the dispute was disproportionate to anything that Andre said to Levivich there. The second diff in my evidence was Levivich's !vote in the RM that got consensus. Since he opposed a pagename that I had originally opposed, I see it as being – in part – directed at me. And Levivich compares those of us who supported the RM to students who didn't do the assigned reading. That's personalizing the discussion, no two ways about it. Levivich argues that the source material supports the old pagename, and contradicts the new name that got consensus. I analyze that claim in my analysis above. And I have another diff in my evidence, that shows me disagreeing with Andre in that same RM about whether there was SYNTH, something Levivich ignores in his !vote comment. The third diff in my evidence was directed at North8000, who previously was completely uninvolved in the dispute, and who had come to the discussion from the RM listing (and who of course is not a sock). If you look at that exchange in context, North asked some perfectly reasonable questions, and was met with inappropriate hostility. That's exactly what I've been talking about, about obstacles to resolving disputes by getting "fresh eyes". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of Barkeep49's evidence

I started compiling my evidence with a few hypotheses, basically all of which I think have failed to stand up to scrutiny. My hypothesis was that we would see the most challenging reports sit open longer than normal (indicating a problem) and/or have abnormal amounts of words (become too unwieldily to close) and/or have an unusual number of admins (not enough admins and/or "too many cooks in the kitchen") and/or have disproportionate participation by parties (which could have been either a response - they were drawn to the hard reports - or a cause - their participation cause reports to become hard). We can also see that PIA cases at AE don't look statistically different from reports in other topica reas (even when removing them from the totals).

So why did some PIA cases get referred but not other cases with some similar characteristics both with-in and outside of the topic area? My best explanation is that AE works well when the conduct of one editor is being considered, it can handle when the conduct of one person being reported and the filer are both considered, but that AE's effectivness is greatly diminished if the conduct of more than 2 editors needs to be considered at the same time. This is what unites the cases referred (PeleYoetz/האופה which were the first referral and the two Nableezys which were the second referral) and the other cases in PIA (IntrepidContributor, Makeandtoss and M.Bitton, and Galamore which were not referred but which were open an unusually long time (they were 3 of the 5 longest cases to resolve at AE in 2024 across all topic areas). In fact at 2 of those I think what allowed them to ultimately be resolved was to focus on a smaller set - essentially 1 or 2 specific editors and then "everyone else involved" as a single entity. And all of this combines with the fact that while PIA cases may not be statistically different on the whole, they represented a huge plurality of total cases - 47% of all 2024 AE cases. This makes it hard for the limited number of AE admins. Sometimes through extraordinary effort (often by a single admin as at IntrepidContributor wth SFR) it is possible to wrangle consensus for a close. However, the repeat "player" element is a contributing factor to the times when AE ultimately referred. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think Butterscotch Beluga makes a good point. The system would work a lot better if we discontinued the use of BOOMERANGs and instead focused on the validity of the filing and the target in the filing, and force BOOMERANGs to be re-filed as a "retaliatory" filing, perhaps made pro forma by a presiding admin to consider that evidence separately. Then the original case could be closed more swiftly if it lacks merit, and it would also discourage the action of allies of the subject of the filing attacking the filer, which is more disruptive and prejudicial than it is elucidatory or probitive in my view. Andre🚐 23:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep's comment below about how AE cases come to involve multiple editors is quite correct. I'll add to that the willingness of admins there to accept the widening of the case when it isn't really necessary. This can too easily become a habit, since it is possible in most ARBPIA cases for someone to write "X did it too" or whatever. The reaction in ordinary cases should not be "now it's too big for us, send it to ArbCom", but rather "then file a case against X". ArbCom should also feel free to send cases back to AE if they feel that the referral wasn't necessary. Zero^talk 05:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there are some other factors that might explain why certain cases were referred. The admin who actually made the referral and who was most vocal in advocating for it was WP:INVOLVED. A second admin who was vocal in advocating for referral made up his mind about it long before any of the referred AEs were even filed. A third admin--you, Barkeep--was under the mistaken impression that ARBPIA AE cases were longer, sat open for longer, or had unusual participation, than other AE cases. Kudos to you for taking the time to thoroughly fact-check your hypotheses and report the results without favor. I wonder, if you knew then what you know now--including the results of the SPIs--would you still have thought referral of the HaOfa and PeleYoetz AE cases was merited? I think the most influential factor in the referrals is simply that the referral ARCA sat open for so long that off-wiki actors had time to "bust" the off-wiki Palestinian canvassing group (e.g., the PirateWires report), and that's what actually moved a few arbs to vote to open this case. I think we had all done it all over again, knowing what we know now, there wouldn't have been a PIA5, just a case about that canvassing group. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Barkeep49, that's very interesting (at least to me), thanks, and it matches the impression that I got when I tried to go through your tables. So it sounds to me like the problems tend to arise with the filing of the cases, first, because there are so many of them, and second, because filings have not focused on one editor at a time. Would it be useful for AE admins to refuse to consider cases that are not about one editor at a time – that is, to require that two separate threads be opened, one for each editor? And are there any patterns about who files AE requests in the PIA area? Are there particular editors, or particular categories of editors, who tend to file the more troublesome cases? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Kinda of. For the most part AE reports are filed against a single individual and only rarely does someone try to file against multiple people. However, cases can "sprawl" during the discussion (ex: Editor A led to Editor B and Editor C reports Editor B but the conduct of Editor A becomes an important element to the AE report). I would put that as the primary issue here. This problem is then exacerbated by the combination of limited AE admin, the total number of PIA cases and the fact that there are a limited number of AE "regulars" in this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems many of the longer cases were drawn out by sidetracking accusations. As such, it might be a good idea to remind editors to stay on topic when participating in an AE report, focusing on the legitimacy of the report at hand rather then shifting to potential whataboutery.

This could be further enforced by encouraging admins to collapse statements seen as off-topic/not directly related to the report. Hopefully, this would reduce argumentation between editors at AE & would limit the amount of noise that admins have to wade through. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps worth exploring whether a disproportionate number of PIA cases at AE (vs. non-PIA cases at AE) involve demands for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions that end up increasing the number of editors within scope? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• One thing that seems worth highlighting: The case that specifically led to this referral was originally focused on one editor, האופה, who was an IceWhiz sock. It seems reasonable to say that that case ought to have focused laser-tight on them and discovered that fact; but ABHammad, another IceWhiz sock, redirected it into a WP:BOOMERANG. Now that we know they were both socks, Icewhiz's motivation for doing this is obvious - with one of his socks under the microscope it was likely that they were going to get caught soon; they wanted to take an enemy down with them and perhaps deflect attention. Variations on this dynamic are going to come up again and again. Obviously this doesn't mean that there weren't other people worth looking at - Icewhiz wouldn't have been able to pull that off if it weren't for the fact that plenty of reasonable editors agreed there were larger issues in the topic that needed to be examined - but to prevent clouding of the water like that, perhaps it would be worth adding a rule that AE cases in the PIA topic area must be focused on a single person named in the title and cannot produce sanctions for anyone except the sole target in the initial filing, fullstop (perhaps with an exception for two-way interaction bans involving the target, which could not otherwise be placed.) This would specifically prohibit direct WP:BOOMERANG results; a separate AE request would have to be opened if someone believes a boomerang is necessary. This might slow things down a bit, but it would also simplify them and would make it harder to derail the original AE request with NOTTHEM arguments - back-and-forth BOOMERANG accusations can make a report almost impossible to untangle; separating them out into two requests would resolve this and might lead to more AE participation by admins. Participants would be generally discouraged from focusing on anyone but the target - context can be added if it explains their action, but ultimately every comment must focus exclusively on the person being examined. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think what I'm about to say undermines your analysis, how one specific report went wrong, but I think you get a few headline facts wrong. I think it's more fair to say that a different report - PeleYoetz, also a sock - led to the the initial referral. And I actually wonder if not for the second referrals - the two involving Nableezy - I question if we'd had a case so arguably that was what specifically led to this case. I also think we're about to reclassify some of the socks currently attributed to Icewhiz into their own sock family simply because we know they're a sock, we know they're likely LTAs, but I think the evidence that they are Icewhiz as opposed to one of our other known LTAs or even some new LTA is weaker. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is interesting. There were 81 PIA cases compare to 9 cases in EE area. The latter involves many big countries, with dramatic histories and a currently ongoing war. The former involves just one very small country. Yes, the human right violations may be an issue, but there are bigger human rights issues in many other countries, EE including. What is so special about PIA? What motivates people to be engaged so much in the editorial conflicts about it? I can't really say. But this is definitely a very good reason to stay out of this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

While I certainly see the rationale for the proposal here, I believe this is the wrong way to solve it. AE is the most bureaucratic part of Wikipedia (with the possible exception of SPI, where relatively new users have no reason to file reports). If an old-timer with lots of AE experience were to bait a new user into violation of policy there, and then file a report once the newcomer calls to the bait, the old-timer would almost certainly get away with it unless the newcomer could request a BOOMERANG in the same thread. I do like Barkeep49's proposal that uninvolved admins split AE reports; this shifts the bureaucracy away from the complaint target who may have zero experience AE to administrators who, by virtue of feeling comfortable doing the split, presumably have enough experience. Animal lover |666| 07:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Levivich your timeline is wrong. I did not agree to refer the first set because of any of the hypothesis you state. I agreed to refer because it seemed to me that uninvolved AE admins would genuinely be unable to reach consensus about how to handle it. The hypothesis came later only because at least one of the drafters, wrongly in my mind, sees this as focused on AE rather than a scope that includes the chance for you to make the claim that there is no problem outside of SOCKS. So I decided to see what I could learn about AE functioning/dysfunction through the lens of the referred cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Valereee

• I don't see that evidence of WP:SEALIONING has been substantiated in Valereee's evidence. That's an essay of course and not a policy or guideline, however, looking at the components outlined there, there's no evidence or analysis substantiated of any particular editor or side excessive textwalling, anyone frivolously requesting citations or undermining undue weight, there's no evidence of sockpuppetry or revert warring by parties in those items of evidence, of soapboxing, frivolous RFCs or misrepresentation, inconsistent logic, SPAs, dubious source reliability, cherrypicking, ignoring of the burden for verifiability, etc. There are plenty of examples of disagreements about what sources say that eventually were resolved and a consensus obtained for much of the dispute shown. Sealioning is basically a bad faith accusation and practically an ASPERSION unless you have specific evidence. From that essay, Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. As pertaining to the discussion about sources between Levivich and I, the examples of me changing my argument in response to Levivich's arguments regarding the diff posted are not SEALIONING but in fact me responding to new information and correcting my mistakes or incomplete understanding. In the end, a consensus was found to rename the article in part based on the arguments that I made; that is not disruptive behavior, but consensus-seeking behavior. [21:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)]

  Clarifying previous comment, yes there is evidence of sockpuppetry in general by the party HaOfa/ABHammad, but there's no specific evidence of that presented here or anything that sheds light on that, if it does, it should be explained. Sealioning isn't just a clueless person or a wrong person, it's specifically an allegation of bad faith, that someone is intentionally "just asking questions" with an ulterior motive. I maintain that I've always been open to compromise and will concede a point if I was mistaken. "Source misrepresentation" as an accident or a mistake or an inaccuracy that is corrected on a talk page is not the same as inserting intentional propaganda or falsehoods knowingly. For example when I said that El-Haj mentioned DNA and it was pointed out she does a lot more than just mention it - yes, but not at the level of a genetics paper. The fact that I didn't articulate that well or overstated the extent isn't evidence of intentional misrepresentation.[00:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)]

  Also, please consider the outcome of the AE being offered by Valereee. I was not sanctioned, and admins determined that my activity was a course correction. I maintain that my behavior was not problematic. I would appreciate if this matter is considered that I be asked to clarify further, as it should be quite clear from examination that during that AE, I was not at fault. Andre🚐 04:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not convinced by the argument made in response here that "fresh eyes" are needed, we already have them, there is an influx of editors in the topic area. All one has to do is to examine the RMs for the Israel-Hamas war and the sheer number of editors participating in them to see that is the case and not a case of experienced editors/regulars ruling the roost. Some of the influx are bad actors and tools might well be useful in that respect as well as generally. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In her evidence, Valereee says in part: I disagree that there are clear editors to blame. In my opinion the issues are systemic and not related to particular editors. And we absolutely do not want everyone left editing in the topic to be ECR but otherwise inexperienced. That interpretation is quite different from my own interpretation, that I have expressed on the case pages. The evidence that she links to does indeed include editors who are EC but inexperienced, and those editors do indeed look to me like they may have read news coverage and come to the topic area with a sense of WP:RGW, as Valereee suggests. But the fact that this happens does not logically mean that the evidence that I and other editors have presented, about editors who are named parties, is invalid: there can be inexperienced EC editors who are difficult, and experienced editors who are disruptive, at the same time. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, these two discussions linked in her evidence are about editors who are named parties here: Andre, who responds above, and HaOfa, who has been blocked as a sock. Another is also by a sock: [31], whereas two other discussions: [32] and [33], fit the description of insufficiently experienced EC editors. As I read those discussions, I was reminded of discussions I often come across, at pages about fringe science and alternative medicine, where I almost daily see indignant editors complaining that such and such cured their medical problem and we should stop calling it pseudoscience. Admittedly, it's easier to respond to science-based material than to material about longstanding human conflicts, but editors are able to deal with those who sealion, without having the ceiling fall in. When I look at the discussions in Valereee's evidence, I see editors who are named parties, dealing with the clueless editors in much the same ways that they interacted with me, in my evidence. The Arbs can decide whether that makes me clueless, but I would argue that the things I described in my evidence also make resolution of the disputes in Valereee's evidence harder to resolve.

In a lot of ways, Valereee's interpretation of her evidence parallels that at #Being right is everything: just give barnstars to the experienced editors who fight the good fight against the editors who want to RGW. I partly agree with Valereee, that ArbCom should not remove all experienced editors from this topic area, but I disagree that ArbCom should just give all the named parties more "tools". I still believe that long-term success in the topic area will depend on experienced uninvolved editors being able to provide "fresh eyes", something that actually looks to me to be what solves some of the disputes in Valereee's evidence. So ArbCom needs to look at where the named parties make the topic area toxic to "fresh eyes". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier takes issue with what I said about "fresh eyes". Perhaps what I said here is not clear enough, without also seeing what I have said in other sections of this Workshop page. I see the point, that just having more insufficiently experienced EC editors show up will not necessarily solve the problem, and risks making it worse. But I was trying to refer to what I showed in my evidence, about how experienced editors (and even some just-EC editors who come to something like an RfC notice, but without axes to grind) need to be part of content dispute resolution, and a hostile editing environment gets in the way of that working as intended. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree in general with Tryptofish and again I underline the need to make the topic area less toxic to "fresh eyes." I hope that Arbcom can and will cut through the noise and focus in laser-like fashion on that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence provided by David A

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This evidence seems wholly without merit. And as everyone can see, BM appears to be on wikibreak or retired and hasn't participated in the case. I haven't always agreed with BM but he's made many valuable contributions. There are plenty of reasons why someone might be motivated to act as he did that have nothing to do with being in the Mossad payroll or whatever insinuation is being inappropriately implied here. Andre🚐 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think it should go without saying that the idea here, which can be summarised as "BM is working for a global conspiracy of some kind", is not exactly likely. Particularly, BM sent their evidence to ARBCOM months before the PirateWires report and it was not obviously co-ordinated with it, and has been doing the kind of detailed/extensive work with Quarry highlighted by David A for years outside the PIA area (see particularly WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2 for examples of what was an immense piece of work done by BM). BM's pre-PIA work goes way beyond what someone might do just to get the credentials to edit in the PIA field. I have my own history with BM (see here particularly for a challenge to one of my PIA-area closes where I honestly think he went a bit - but only a bit - too far), but my experience of BM is that he is an editor with many good characteristics but also who has rigid, relentless side to their character of a kind that David A might be able to recognise, not that they are some kind of super-spy sent here to disrupt Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

PS - if this evidence is worth paying attention to at all (which I'm not sure about) it is of the conspiratorial, battleground, mindset that too many in the PIA field have, where the opposite "team" (be it "I" or "P"), which includes anyone disagreeing with them, is necessarily part of some kind of global conspiracy. This only serves to create a toxic and hostile editing environment, typified by wall-of-text discussions of people talking past each other, with votes from the "regulars" that almost never vary from what you might predict. Newer good-faith editors are simply driven away by this. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a conspiratorial, battleground mindset is not helpful at all in the topic area or in general, but I question whether there an evidentiary basis for the belief that "Newer good-faith editors are simply driven away by this" that would stand up to statistical scrutiny. I'm not sure this widely held belief about the topic area is true at all. The topic area receives edits by about ten to twenty thousand different editors each year (there's no way of knowing what proportion are good-faith), and the topic area is more attractive to editors than Wikipedia in general. And that's despite the extendedconfirmed requirements. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that a number of new and inexperienced editors who get forced out of the topic area because of this are, in fact, unconstructive (see my evidence on this.) People focus on established editors because they're the parties and because you're not usually going to have enough evidence to do something about drive-bys, but most of the worst individual edits in the topic area are coming from new / inexperienced ones, and because of the large volume of them (almost certainly a result of the massive amount of partisan external coverage clearly pushing people towards Wikipedia) this is happening a lot, with the same things repeating themselves over and over. And, finally, I don't think it requires an elaborate conspiracy for an editor to be in contact with a journalist - it has happened in this topic area before; it's happened in others, too. It really just requires an editor feel strongly about things and send one email. By the same token, it's hard to prove and absent a confession would most requires subjective WP:DUCK stuff, but it's not something we can dismiss out of hand; there are absolutely journalists, bloggers, people on social media etc. covering the topic area who are focusing on extremely detailed internal Wikipedia stuff and who, at the very least, would love to receive that stuff (see my evidence on coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that good faith new editors are being driven away. There is no evidence of votes from regulars that almost never vary. Meanwhile, there is actual evidence of actual, real conspiracies in this topic area (on both sides). So maybe we should base our conclusions on actual evidence. Because making stuff up out of whole cloth is not good. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

”there’s no evidence of votes from regulars that almost never vary” - there most definitely is. The “massacre” discussions where Team “I” and Team “P” just switched ends when the whistle blew and started the “sources say X” versus “I think this was a massacre because [independent reasoning]” show a number of the parties engaging in this pretty clearly.

”we should base our conclusions on actual evidence” - care to comment on whether David A’s submissions, and whether or not they are actual evidence? Because frankly this kind of “one player says something totally off-base and another doesn’t defend it per se but attacks those criticising it” 1-2 punch is part of what makes this area so hostile/toxic. It is exactly the campism you’ve just denied. FOARP (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much every ArbCom case I have tuned into (admittedly a minority) has included claims of editors being driven away. There is rarely any evidence for it beyond a few anecdotes about individual editors. In this topic, objective statistics show that the number of editors is booming. Of course, that doesn't mean nobody left after arriving, but for that to be a bad thing one would have to know the reason they left. Quantitative evidence doesn't exist, but I know for sure that one reason is that new editors who arrive with little more than opinions quickly discover they are out of their depth. In other words, the very fact that the regulars demand high sourcing standards of each other makes it difficult for newcomers to contribute. It can also be said that the sourcing standards would not be as high as they are if there was no conflict between factions. Zero^talk 08:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Your "massacre" evidence does not show two teams switching sides, as demonstrated in my analysis table above at #Evidence presented by FOARP. Some of your "examples" were people only voting on one RM (Iohann) and people who never "switched sides" (Make)! AFAICS, no one has even been able to point to a second example of this supposed "two teams switching sides" phenomenon. I hope after this case is over, this false talking point is finally put to rest. Levivich (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I listed all !votes for all parties of this case at the point when the evidence was posted so necessarily there were people for whom only one !vote was listed. Iskandar323, Selfstudier, and Nableezy all pooh-poohed arguments based on individual reasoning and insisted on the "let's go with the sources" approach when it suited them, then when it didn't they took exactly that approach. FOARP (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Makeandtoss

• While this evidence does show some amount of sockpuppet disruption, particularly votestacking and delay tactics (referred to as stonewalling, though I think that's not quite the right terminology), just because there are a large number of socks does not actually give evidence of institutional or systematic activity, nor is there anything particularly sophisticated about using a proxy or of making multiple accounts. A single individual could readily accomplish this, so we'd need more evidence to understand if there is something institutional about it. Any individual with a modicum of technical savvy can easily use a VPN or proxy. And while it is true that I did attempt to give advice and deescalate the Techiya1925 situation, that was before I knew they were a disruptive sockpuppet, and I stand by the advice which is in good faith and an attempt to save what appeared to be productive contributions. The outcome is unfortunate, but I think assuming good faith is important and would do the same today knowing what I knew then. I haven't always or even usually agreed with the sockfarm, for example I've explained on the Zionism talk page that "colonization" is an accurate word, but it's "settler-colonialism" that is more controversial. The problem has to do with the tone and implication. It's literally true that Zionism involved the establishment of agricultural colonies, and I've never disputed this. I do not know who operates the sockfarm, but I really doubt it is any official institutional organization, and as I've said before it is counterproductive and should cease, but we also should not give in to baseless conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is a website used by thousands or millions of good faith users and there's been lots of coverage of this topic in the last year and change. There are many people motivated to edit. I'm not justifying RGW, I have tried to be a moderating influence and rein in the worst impulses. I think my edits and comments do show that. Andre🚐 23:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence by Smallangryplanet

Policy defines canvassing as notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. A blog post calling for Wikipedia editors to fix mistakes in article does not meet the definition of canvassing because no discussion or content dispute was influenced here. It does not appear that Smallangryplanet is claiming the edits themselves are inherently disruptive, so it's unclear what rules have been violated. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have not been "canvassing for an offwiki blog." There has been a lot of coverage of ARBPIA in various sources. There is absolutely no truth to the idea that I have been "canvassing" for a blog. Review the test for WP:CANVASS. Inappropriate canvassing is outlined, such as vote stacking or stealth canvassing, spamming, excessive cross-posting, or other behaviors such as forumshopping, proxying for a banned editor etc. If someone posts something publicly on a news site and I later made a similar edit to what was brought to my attention on a news site, that is not canvassing. There have been quite a few articles in various sources such as the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Insider, Jewish Journal etc. which do make the rounds and some of them have referenced the blog mentioned. However, again, someone posting a public blog or news site leading to me looking at similar pages isn't canvassing. I take responsibility for my own edits and didn't make them at the behest of anyone else. The edits should be judged on their own merits whether they were improvements or not. And while it's true that I was topic-banned for my actions in ARBPIA, I served out the topic-ban and have sought to avoid similar actions. The Arbcomblock was not related to the topicban and isn't something that should be brought up. Also, in at least one of the examples highlighted ("Jewish bribes") I checked the source and found that it was perfectly accurate, meaning that I found the opposite conclusion to what the blogger objected to. If making independent edits that are related to topics that are publicly discussed in the news is canvassing, I'd like to understand why and under what policy rationale. There is no coordination between my edits and anyone else. Andre🚐 22:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I assume this should be clear from the edits but just to spell it out, there were plenty of criticisms of Wikipedia content discussed in the blogs and news sites that I didn't edit about, because I didn't agree or they seemed fine enough to my eyes, or I wasn't sure an edit would improve things constructively. The only times I've edited something after reading about adjacent content in the news were times when I felt that an actual error or mistake was being pointed out and correcting it would be an improvement. I can't figure out what rule this supposedly violates anyway, but if no edits are shown to actually have been wrong, problematic, or disruptive on their own, it would seem that there's no basis to claim they are sanctionable. I am not aware of a policy or guideline that says one should not edit what they read about in the news and blogs. I applied my own thinking to determine whether in fact those edits were improvements. I also never did so in a way to unfairly influence a discussion or anything of that nature. The idea that I'd been canvassed doesn't really make sense since I've edited in this topic area for years, long before the current escalation of the conflict, and in some cases those same articles that were being discussed. It's true that reading about it has the effect of driving more eyes to those articles, which is not canvassing because it's not influencing a discussion or designed to do so, it is transparent, public, and not tied to any specific person or onwiki activity. My specific edits weren't in any way dictated by anyone else, but even if for the sake of argument I was taking cues from the news and blogs on what to edit, there'd still need to be a sanctionable example of disruption or some kind of evidence that I was doing anything other than looking at a public critical fact check and deciding for myself if any "there" was there. None of that is part of canvassing or proxying. Andre🚐 01:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit that Butterscotch Beluga cites was in no way influenced by any external source. For example, I created Saul Pinchas Rabbinowicz, a member of Lovers of Zion, in December 2023. Besides which that edit is simply informational, and in no way borrows any information from any blog or news site about Wikipedia. I never edited on anyone's behalf. If I saw a fact check on Wikipedia and I corrected an error, that's not editing on someone else's behalf. Andre🚐 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga, I didn't fulfill any specific edit requests. Various news sources have been pointing out issues in Wikipedia, and in some cases, after reviewing what they were looking at I saw fit to make changes to those pages. In no situation did I fulfill a specific edit request, and even if I had, it doesn't meet the definition of canvassing as outlined in our guidelines. Canvassing isn't just anytime anyone sees someone else talking about a page in public and decides to edit it. Andre🚐 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, I did not "execute any assigned tasks," and there is no "firewall." People read stuff all the time, sometimes about Wikipedia, and there's no way to prevent all of the external content from influencing Wikipedia's content, nor should there be. That's counter to the purpose or the letter or spirit of the canvassing guideline. AFAIK, there is no prohibition against editing having read stuff online unless someone can show that it was done to influence inappropriately or proxying edits for a banned editor. Canvassing is about influencing discussions, basically advertising them to bring likeminded people to an RFC or something like that. That's what the word "canvass" literally refers to, the door-to-door campaigning that political campaigns do. There's nothing about a prohibition on reading coverage and then checking it out for myself and deciding to make edits as long as the edits themselves are independently OK. That isn't coordination and it's not canvassing. And, besides which, the edits are not in any way being objected to or disruptive. Andre🚐 05:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, just to be clear, it was never the case that someone wrote specifically "change X to Y" and I changed it. The articles in the media and blogs pointing out errors or issues were for the most part much more general and open-ended, not specific edit requests. Yes, a few instances where they complained about something where the obvious remedy was to remove it, like using a deprecated source, or calling Sinwar humble. And, while I understand you're trying to identify constructive changes, I do not think there is nor should be anything undesirable about someone pointing out a deprecated source and then me seeing that, going "huh. looks that IS a deprecated source" and removing it. That's a service to the project. It's not MEAT because the authors of the blog posts or the JPost piece aren't also editing. Also, in the case of the Selfstudier thing, the blogger and I likely both saw it at the same time, I didn't get that from them. And I don't see how my polite request to Self is inappropriate, which he complied with. And as I already pointed out, I checked the "Jewish bribes" quote and it appeared OK, and remains. None of this would be considered MEAT. MEAT refers to disruptive coordination, like for votestacking. I acted alone and I didn't take instructions from anyone, just ideas of where to look. Any reasonable editor would have made the same edits. Andre🚐 06:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, AndresJerutHaim is banned so that was proxying. The T4P as I understand it were coordinating and canvassing discussions. It's hardly comparable. Andre🚐 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, in a scenario where the user wasn't banned and wasn't canvassing people to active discussions like an AFD or an RFC with an eye toward influencing the discussion, but if a user was simply sending an article to someone else and saying something like "look, this article sucks! would you help me fix it or work on it?" Well, that happens all the time in Discord, Wikipediocracy and IRC, more or less. It is not treated as canvassing or as something inappropriate. Andre🚐 09:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean, I think that we view things from a certain lens of being well-versed in the process of Wikipedia, which looks rather arcane to outsiders. Most "normal" people do not have the time or patience to figure out how to edit and work their way through bureaucratic policy pages and complex sets of technical considerations. They give up before they even start, due to the usability curve. It may seem simple but that's because most people reading this have internalized all the complexity. The truth is, as we know, only a small percentage of users do a large percentage of edits. And most of everyone doesn't ever edit, and if they do, maybe they do some very small stuff while logged out, or make an account, make a few edits and then forget about it. For many people, the best way to express themselves is going to be write a blog, go on social media, or even write an old-fashioned letter to the editor - I think there are still a few venues to do that. Or, as we've seen, create an account and leave a message on the talk page saying "THIS PAGE IS SO UNFAIR TO TRUMP!" or whatever.

Occasionally people over the years have asked me to do something for them on Wikipedia, knowing that I was an admin/bureaucrat for many years. Usually, I just tell them I don't have the time, or the thing they want isn't something I can give them (e.g. write an article about someone not really notable). But we allow edit requests by not ECR users, so what's the difference between an offwiki observer making a comment like "hey, they're using a deprecated source" or "it's kind of weird that Sinwar is described as 'humble' in wikivoice" (obviously, not an accurate paraphrase), and me deciding they have a legitimate point and making that change, changes that remained unobjected to until now? If some redlinked user had left that comment on a talk page using an edit request template wouldn't it be fair game? I don't see this as offwiki influencers calling the shots. It's just a source of feedback. That feedback needs to be filtered through the process of knowledgeable consideration, but in the end, more feedback is better.

Anyway, I think it's true that there is more critical media now, but maybe we should be introspective and self-critical and consider why that may be as a function of our coverage of recent events, which in some important respects lack balance. That's a problem this case could consider. Then perhaps there'd be less media coverage that's so critical because there'd be less to criticize. Yes, the Larry Sangers of the world are always going to be complaining and we can't please everyone. But Wikipedia will never be finished, and anything we can do to improve it is valuable, so in my mind there's still an operative question of whether the edits in this scenario or any similar scenario are actual improvements or not. I'd say they are, and I think we should welcome improvements that don't conflict with any other policy or guideline provided that we are working within the bounds of the given scenario. Andre🚐 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the comment by Aquillion. I hadn't read or don't remember reading the specific quote you mention, but what does that have to do with me? I didn't do what that blog post advises to do in that quote. That quote relates to canvassing, but that doesn't mean my actions were canvassing. Andre🚐 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:PROXYING (which AFAIK doesn't apply here) states: unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. and WP:MEAT deals with new users and states: Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. I will maintain that my edits are showing independent judgment. The principle is to judge whether the edits are justifying. Canvassing, again, deals with influencing a discussion, not making otherwise good edits. If someone has a problem with my specific changes that should be discussed. Andre🚐 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, you appear to be litigating the conflict or the dispute, but that's not what these pages are for. I could just as easily turn everything you said on its head and that would not be productive, because the job of these pages is to determine if there's a problem in the area in terms of the behavior of the parties and editing, not a content dispute. I would say one of the problems in the area is that people tend to take the news and bring it into editing with them. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to take sides in a conflict or do what's right on the world stage to help civilians. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to be neutral, unemotional, and take a 10-year distant view of what this period of history will be about, doing the most accurate job to summarize the material in a way that will best inform and edify. I try to see both sides of issues, or even point out that there are more than two sides. Personalizing the dispute or making it about life and death are how we end up with a hostile and toxic area. Nothing that we quibble about on Wiki talk pages will affect the world stage, and we're not doing the bidding of important secret agents. That is all just not in evidence. We are simply reading stuff online and trying, within the bounds of an increasingly outdated piece of software, to turn it into readable content. This arbcom case is not going to decide who is "right" or how to help the people who are suffering. The point is to determine whether there are issues that involve behavior. Not content. And I would say implications that anyone who believes nuance is important or the jury may still be out on how best to describe controversial and loaded issues is helping bad state actors on the world stage is part of the problem in this area. Andre🚐 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to read the "their blog" comment, but, no, it's not my blog, and I've not contributed to it. I have read the blog, I don't see how in any common sense that would make it my blog though. It's definitely not my blog and I certainly deny any ownership of anything on it, and there are plenty of things on the blog that I disagree with. Andre🚐 23:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It would an offence if Andre was following suggestions by someone he knew to be a banned Wikipedia editor. It would also be an offence if Andre was himself asking on that blog for people to make particular edits. Unless I missed something, neither of those things have been demonstrated, so I don't see an offence here. ArbCom will know if the similarity to T4P is enough to warrant further investigation. Zero^talk 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. No, neither of those has taken place. Andre🚐 05:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• yall need word limits for this page too, sheesh. But consider this exhibit q as to why opening an unfocused case off of AE threads that could have been resolved by themselves was a bad idea. The one thing that could be a net positive out of this case is reforming how AE functions. But this? Y’all need to put a pin in this type of back and forth, which I kinda thought was part of the process any way. nableezy - 20:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe they're interpreting it as canvassing because of this description, which states "Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable." along with general uncertainty of what constitutes sanctionable off-wiki behavior. Personally, I'm not sure where the line is for editing influenced by outside suggestions when WP:PROXYING doesn't apply. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: What discussion was influenced here? I don't see any evidence of such a discussion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While you could say this discussion was technically influenced, I meant more that I could understand interpreting editing on another's behalf as a form of "being canvassed". I'm not certain if it's the correct term to use here though. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: Based on your own understanding of policy, was AndreJustAndre canvassed to any discussions? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While I don't think it's technically canvassing because the blogger is likely not an editor themselves, they still saw the blogger's edit requests & made those edits. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather than asking 'did editor X break rule R1 or R2 etc.', maybe it is better to ask what the objective of the ruleset should be, then make sure the rules reflect that. It's not clear to me that the objective of the rules is clear at the moment. I don't know whether "editing influenced by outside suggestions" is prohibited or allowed. There are a lot of external actors trying to exert an influence over Wikipedia content every day. They are not part of the community, and they are not sanctionable. Should editors be allowed to participate in those campaigns/influence operations by executing the tasks they assign? To me it makes no difference whether the editor agrees or disagrees with the objective of the task or whether that external party's view is consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy. It's about whether there is a firewall between what happens on wiki and what happens off-wiki. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: The objective of the rules isn't to prevent editors from addressing legitimate concerns raised by those outside of the Wikipedia community. Canvassing rules prevent vote-stacking in discussions. WP:PROXYING is intended to close a loophole in which banned users continue disrupting the encyclopedia. In both cases, the disruptive impact is what matters. I agree with looking at the objectives of the rules. Your comment doesn't tell me why a firewall between what happens on wiki and what happens off-wiki would improve Wikipedia.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Andre, to clarify, I'm not interested in whether you personally did or did not execute any assigned tasks. No one needs to defend themselves from me. I also don't care what current policy says. My point is that that the objectives appear to be unclear, and it might be possible to clarify them. The very fact that this issue has been raised tells me there is a lack of clarity. If an external party writes "X should be changed to Y" and an internal party sees that and then changes X to Y, they have executed the task. That is the way I see it. Should that be allowed? I say probably not because we have internal processes to handle content changes. If someone wants something changed on Wikipedia they can become a Wikipedia editor. For example, what is meatpuppetry? WP:MEAT focuses on 'new editors'. Why does it do that? Why is meatpuppetry a function of account age? If the cause is 'enlisting assistance off-wiki', what difference does it make whether the effect involves new editors or old editors? In the phrase 'influence inappropriately' in your comment, the word 'inappropriately' is meaningless to me. The word that matters is 'influence'. Wikipedia's rules try to formalize and internalize 'influence' so that it is an internal transparent process between collaborating Wikipedia editors, not an external force. Having said all that, I agree that "there's no way to prevent all of the external content from influencing Wikipedia's content". There is no way to know why an editor did a particular thing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants something changed on Wikipedia they can become a Wikipedia editor. Let's say someone I know IRL tells me about a typo in a Wikipedia article and asks me if I can fix it. Should I refuse to fix the problem and tell them to do it themselves? Or am I allowed to make the edit? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. That's my point really. Phrases like 'legitimate concerns raised by those outside of the Wikipedia community' means nothing to me. I'm one of the top 30 pro-Hamas editors who hijacked the Wikipedia narrative. That is an example of a 'legitimate' concern. I know that I won't know how to reliably tell the difference between a legitimate concern and an illegitimate concern in many cases. Typos fixes are not a good test because they are innocuous. The lead of the Zionism article is probably a good test ground. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note that there was no dependency on the notion of legitimacy of arguments or content edits when editors were blocked for actioning tasks assigned by AndresHerutJaim via email or the Tech for Palestine group (tasks all of the people involved presumably agreed with and regarded as fine). There seems to be an ill-defined community 'feeling' that there is something not quite right about links between off-wiki things and on-wiki things that I think might benefit from being re-examined. In the topic area, people are very good at probing for rule-fuzziness and exploiting it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Andre, yes, we know something about AHJ. That is pure random luck. The people who carried out the tasks probably didn't know that, and I'm pretty sure they didn't now they are a racist ultranationalist. They were probably just doing things that seemed reasonable and consistent with policy, edits, !votes etc. The Tech for Palestine group were essentially an offsite Wikiproject or something resembling a biased subreddit that sends editors here. Pretend we didn't know anything about AHJ, or that they weren't banned, or that they were an online influencer or a journalist etc. I'm keen to not fall into the trap of thinking inside the box we have built because it is probably not the best box. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should provide a bit of context. The way I think about this issue has changed because it looks like something has changed in the way partisan actors think about Wikipedia over recent years. It has perhaps become a little bit more important, especially lead sections of articles, and it can be quite difficult to get Wikipedia content to tell the story you want to tell by participating in the community on-wiki. So, there seems to be a shift towards trying to exert influence externally through social media, reporting, editor recruitment and coordination etc. I'm not sure the current policies and guidelines are really optimized for a world where there are numerous organized influence operations out there trying to persuade people to change content, vote a certain way in an RFC, or an RM etc. The border that separates on-wiki and off-wiki processes seems to be blurring. Or in a nutshell, something like - if you can't get what you want on-wiki, try off-wiki. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current policies and guidelines are really optimized for a world where there are numerous organized influence operations. Is that really new? Years ago Wikipedia was subjected to harsh criticism because of corporate efforts to openly and aggressively influence content. Companies like BP dispatched employees to edit the articles and participate in talk page discussions. The reaction of the WMF, after some time had elapsed, was to require disclosure of paid editing and to allow paid editor participation, if confined to the talk page, with direct article editing only "strongly discouraged" and not banned outright. In the course of that, while a paid editing policy was enacted to deal with only certain actors, WP:COI was never elevated to anything more than a behavioral guideline, and to this day it is not policy. The fact is that Wikipedia has long acknowledged and, de facto, tolerated external forces influencing Wikipedia content, and recognized that as a byproduct of anonymous editing. All that can be done is to ride herd over it. But what should not and must not be done is to adopt a kind of "McCarthyite" paranoia, in which widespread criticism of Wikipedia articles is assumed to result in meatpuppeting. That is deeply dangerous and I think will only further erode Wikipedia's credibility in this topic area. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Many blogs, message boards and so on discuss Wikipedia content, and have done so for quite a few years. A couple are so notable that they have their own Wikipedia articles. They are forever describing which Wikipedia articles are good, bad and indifferent. Are we going to start claiming that those sites are "canvassing" and that those who edit in some way consistent with posts on those boards are canvassers or canvassees? Please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Are they run by people who support the use of violence by state or non-state actors that kills hundreds or thousands of civilians along with various other violations of international law? Those seem like the kind of people who shouldn't have any influence over Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Which relates exactly how to WP:CANVASS? Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• The relevant policy is WP:MEAT, not WP:CANVASS. It is pretty unambiguous: Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. This blog is unambiguously attempting to recruit new editors in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia - it say so in basically as many words. It's a textbook attempt at meatpuppetry; the key point is that it is unambiguously and specifically instructing people to edit Wikipedia in a particular way (and instructing them to violate policy; see the quote below.) That's the red line - you can highlight what you see as problems in your blog, sure; you absolutely cannot attempt to gin up a flood of meatpuppets in a topic area with a particular POV. Maybe some of the other blogs you mention tiptoe around that line in a "someone rid me of this troublesome priest" sort of way, but this one clearly crosses it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather ironically, ArbCom themselves started a case based largely upon something that they saw published offsite, when they made themselves the filing party for the Polish Holocaust case after reading the (now infamous) G&S paper. I don't regard that ArbCom case as having been a good idea, but I think it illustrates pretty vividly that seeking to fix something in our content after seeing someone criticize it elsewhere is not, in itself, an indication of having acted to carry out a canvassing request. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like some of the people defending Andre here have perhaps not actually read the evidence. This is a quote from the part of the blog in question that was submitted as evidence: Now this doesn't mean that you should be a "boy scout." You can bet the pro-Hamas editors aren't. They are almost certainly coordinating their efforts privately via email. You should too. 'This is known as "canvassing," which is contrary to Wikipedia rules, so be sure that you do so with people you know personally in "real life." Do not communicate with other editors using the Wikipedia email system. While the contents of your emails supposedly can't be read, a record is kept of who you are emailing through the system. That is none of their business. Emphasis mine. I don't see any ambiguity here; this is unambiguously instructing would-be editors to canvass, in as many words; it is telling them that it breaks the rules and telling them to do it anyway because the other side is (presumed to be) doing it. Summarizing that as A blog post calling for Wikipedia editors to fix mistakes in articles is just not reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What I see here is casting aspersions without evidence, just simply a suspicion based on some rather anodyne criticism of Wikipedia of the kind that has been made quite heavily in recent months. Maybe editors are influenced by such criticism or not. To assume that they are taking orders or working as meatpuppets for an external website is irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent, considering that there are many external websites that criticize Wikipedia and attack various articles. Some are message boards in which editors claim to be specific Wikipedia users.

If someone can find proof placing Andre at that or any other website, he should provide that evidence to arbcom. If not, they should desist from casting aspersions on him or her or any other editor, based purely on their taking a position that happens to coincide with what outside critics say. I'm deeply disturbed by this kind of accusation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

the evidence is the quote in green soliciting for certain folks to start editting wikipedia, and specific steps included in that quote on how to avoid being caught for canvassing/meatpuppeting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's evidence that an external website advocates people canvassing, nothing more. It's not "evidence" of anything else, and certainly can't be used as a club against any editor. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important for Arbs to know if a website is canvassing people in general & if someone's edits happen to repeatedly coincide with that website's output, that should also be noted.

They can decide for themselves though if that's correlation, causation, or even if it's an issue or not, but personally, I'm glad the information was brought to people's attention nonetheless. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a template message designed specifically for situations in which editors are brought to talk pages based on external publicity, so it is not an unusual situation, nor is it a violation of policy for them to be so motivated. The "please do canvass" statement is troubling, but is this blog a center of canvassing? Is it a "nerve center" for canvassing the way other websites have been, with editors identifying themselves and directing other editors to specific articles? Coretheapple (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I... didn't say it was? I'm saying that any potential sources of canvassing should be looked into, especially in such a contentious topic.

Better for it to be on the radar with nothing serious happening then for it to be ignored & potentially leave the community blind sighted in the future. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you there, and lest there be a misunderstanding, I understand the threat posed by canvassing, though I disagree with what some describe as its centrality in this area. If you look at the top of my user page you can see a a warning that I put in place in March. My threat to go to arbcom was not an empty one, and if memory serves I believe that I made arbcom aware of what turned out to be a sock farm. So sure, there is canvassing. But let's not go overboard. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also I think that you need to go back and re-read WP:MEAT, as it deals with specific situations in which people recruit their pals to come in and edit Wikipedia. To assume that a longtime editor is one such "meatpuppet" based on his or her taking the same position as an external website is a misreading of the contents of that subsection. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that the blog was seeking to CANVASS edits. But the blog is not a named party in this case. The fact that Andre might have read what the blog said, and decided that, in this particular case, he might make his own determination as to whether or not something should be corrected, does not constitute Andre being a meatpuppet on behalf of that blog. That's an important distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tests like "independent reasons for making such edits" and "exercised independent judgment" have no utility as far as I'm concerned because it's not possible to apply those kinds of tests to a person's edits. Those are not observable things. What you can observe is the external 'change x to y' task, whether it was actioned, and the parties involved. You can then ask questions about the nature of the source that created the task and the objective of the task e.g. is the source a supporter of an organization that carries out acts of mass violence against civilians like ISIS, the Assad regime, the Israeli military, Hamas' military wing, the Russian military, and is the objective consistent with the Universal Code of Conduct that prohibits "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". For me, it is not about what current policy says. Current policy doesn't work. It's about making sure bad actors who shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia content have zero impact on content.

As for things like "we should be introspective and self-critical and consider why that may be as a function of our coverage of recent events" and "perhaps there'd be less media coverage that's so critical because there'd be less to criticize". Introspection and being self-critical are obviously essential, but there's no reason for me to care what external parties who support state and non-actors that carry out mass violence against civilians think about Wikipedia content. I would say the media coverage is mostly a function of recent events rather than our coverage. A reputation management problem, a distraction from the horror. The negative coverage might stop when the mass killing stops, when a distraction is no longer useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a policy violation I think this discussion is pointless and should be hatted. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the ultimate question here is where do we draw the line? We know that one of the original causes of this AfD was accusations of pro-Palestinian off-wiki coordination. This looks an awful lot like pro-Israel off-wiki coordination and, frankly, seems to have had about as much or more overall impact on the topic area than the Tech for Palestine group (which seems to have had one Wikipedia editor participating who was summarily blocked). So I think an appropriate outcome would be delineating what constitutes off-wiki coordination? Is it off-wiki coordination to vent on social media? To have a blog soliciting edits? To make edits that look similar to requested edits at a blog / discord / etc.? I want to note I'm not making any specific accusations here because I think the problem is a lack of clarity about where the line is. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia, social circles, etc. I have participated in private discords where I've definitely vented about Wikipedia safe in the knowledge that I'm the only person in my social group with any interest in Wikipedia editing. As such I can comfortably say "I am really angry about this or that" in private and with no intention or expectation of soliciting anyone to do anything even by accident as I know my friends on that discord think Wikipedia is a waste of time. Is that off-wiki coordination? I think a clearly delineated bright-line for inappropriate off-wiki activity would be a valuable outcome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Then in that case Arbcom is going to have to sanction itself, as it took action against the Tech4Palestine editors and Tech4Palestine was a key focus of much of the negative coverage in external sites. I can think of no area of Wikipedia that has been more directly influenced by external coverage in this topic area. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

PirateWires raking muck is hardly something Wikipedia should have ever deigned to stooping to worrying about IMO. However it's a non-sequitur to say that, if the problem is a lack of clarity as to where the line is drawn on off-wiki canvassing, then the arbitration committee should sanction itself for taking any action at all. You'll note I'm not asking to unblock the one editor blocked for the TechForPalestine tempest in a teapot. I'm not even asking for any sanctions against Andre for their blog. I'm asking for the Arbitration Committee to set clear guidance about what constitutes inappropriate off-wiki activity so that this guidance can be applied evenly and without consideration for the ideological position of the person talking about Wikipedia off Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a rule against off-wiki activity: WP:CANVASS, which was cited against the Tech4Palestine editors.

What evidence do you have that Andre has a blog ("their blog"}? Has he acknowledged contributing to a blog? And if he did, what of it? And what do we do about the hundreds of Wikipedia editors, including many administrators, who contribute quite openly under their user names to notable Wikipedia "watchdog" websites that seek to influence content? Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd all be very sad to see Wikipediocracy having less influence on this website but I think we could live with it if it meant that WP:CANVASS was clarified sufficiently to set an actionable standard for behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest you head to WT:CANVASS and propose changes that would address any such supposed shortcomings. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you are so opposed to the Arbitration committee providing guidance as to the limits of WP:CANVASS as an outcome of this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh really? That is news to me. Where has "guidance" been proposed? Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC). All I'm seeing is a lot of hand-waving about Andre, casting of aspersions, innuendo, and unsupported allegations ("their blog"). That is why I felt this discussion was pointless and should be hatted. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

They said "I think a clearly delineated bright-line for inappropriate off-wiki activity would be a valuable outcome.", so they obviously are asking for some sort of clarification or "guidance" on the matter.

I'll also note that most of this discussion hasn't been about Andre in specific, but similar conduct as a whole.

_{Also, I think you're taking the use of "their blog" too personally, as I read it more as "their blog that they read" rather then "their blog that they write/own".} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If a "blog they read" can be termed "their blog" then I don't think there's any point in pursuing further rulemaking in that area. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, in fact you'll note I explicitly said I did not prefer disciplinary sanctions in this area as I feel that there is insufficient guidance on where the bounds of canvassing lie and that it's pervasive across the article set. I pointed out that everybody here has a life outside of Wikipedia and is a human being with thoughts and feelings they may want to communicate with people who aren't Wikipedia editors. I even pointed out that I have discussed Wikipedia matters in private social channels based on the assumption my friends would not act upon my venting. It doesn't change that I said to friends "this thing that happened on Wikipedia upset me." @Coretheapple with all due respect I think you're fixating too much on the example of Andre's situation while I'm saying Andre's situation is actually quite normal and that the best course of action would be for us to have clearly delineated boundaries about what counts as coordination and what counts as venting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We're discussing this "evidence," titled "AndreJustAndre Canvassing." The discussion here made it quite plain that there was no canvassing, and then there was general venting on how unfair external websites are. I'll grant you that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There already is a clear line. The actions involved in WP:PROXYING must be disruptive, and the actions in WP:CANVASSING must have influenced a discussion. Multiple people have asserted that "it's unclear where the line is!!" without identifying the specific ambiguity.

The issue here is that behaviour you want proscribed (i.e. what Andre did) is not against the rules as written. Rather than acknowledge that Andre didn't break the rules, you want to say the rules are unclear and have ArbCom reinterpret them in a way that'll be sanctionable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, no. I understand that "a blog post calling for Wikipedia editors to fix mistakes in article" is usually a blatant canvassing. What "blog", exactly? That matters. This is typically a blog frequented by supporters of one specific side in a dispute. Obviously, they will come to support their side. This is just a general comment. I have no idea what specific blog posts others are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: