stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia:Arbitraje/Solicitudes

Básculas de pesaje
Comité de Arbitraje
Atajos
  • Página de inicio: RFAR
  • WP:A/R
  • WP:ARB/R
  • WP:ARBREQ

La solicitud de arbitraje es el último paso en la resolución de disputas de conducta en Wikipedia. El Comité de Arbitraje considera las solicitudes para abrir nuevos casos y revisar decisiones anteriores. Todo el proceso se rige por la política de arbitraje . Para obtener información sobre cómo solicitar arbitraje y cómo se aceptan y se tratan los casos, consulte la guía de arbitraje .

Para solicitar la ejecución de decisiones arbitrales anteriores o sanciones discrecionales , no abra un nuevo caso de arbitraje. En su lugar, envíe su solicitud a /Solicitudes/Ejecución .

Esta página incluye /Caso , /Aclaración y enmienda , /Mociones y /Ejecución .

Por favor haga su solicitud en la sección correspondiente:

Actas del Comité de Arbitraje
  • cambios recientes
  • purgar esta pagina
  • Ver o discutir esta plantilla
Solicitudes de casos
[editar]
Casos abiertos
[editar]
Casos cerrados recientemente ( Casos pasados )

No se han cerrado casos recientemente ( ver todos los casos cerrados ).

Solicitudes de aclaración y enmiendas
Mociones del árbitro

No hay mociones de arbitraje abiertas actualmente.


Conducta relacionada con la wikipediocracia

Iniciado por Dilettante a las 19:07, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Fiestas propuestas

Confirmación de que todas las partes conocen la solicitud
Confirmación de que se han intentado otros pasos para la resolución de disputas

Declaración de Dilettante

Este caso es el resultado de discusiones periódicas entre facciones "pro" y "anti-WPO", particularmente en relación con las ediciones de Lightburst que han escalado hasta el punto de que la sola mención de WPO puede descarrilar una discusión. Aunque el cierre de la ANI más reciente recomendó no presentar un caso de arbcom hasta el momento, la única sanción con consenso fue WP:VEXBYSTERANG y no aborda el problema de raíz o, si existe, los usuarios raíz culpables. ANI no está destinada a manejar casos de presunta mala conducta fuera de la wiki, ni ha tratado con PA en la wiki contra Wikipedócratas, por ejemplo [1]

La mayor parte de mis pruebas no están en la wiki o dependen de una combinación de publicaciones dentro y fuera de la wiki, así que las enviaré por correo electrónico más tarde hoy. Además, tengo pruebas contra alguien (que no figura como parte debido a los límites de presentación y la falta de pruebas en la wiki), lo que creo que debería justificar una indefinición, si no una prohibición.

Daniel Para ser claro, creo que tu cierre estuvo bien y evaluaste con precisión el consenso. Atentamente, Dilettante 21:16, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
AndytheGrump . ¡Lo siento! Probablemente me excedí en redactar varios correos electrónicos para el Comité de Arbitraje con más contexto y no logré que esta solicitud de caso quedara clara, al menos en parte porque es común que el Comité de Arbitraje altere o amplíe el alcance.

La WPO no es el eje central de la discusión pública (es privada, no tengo idea, no sé quién presentará evidencias y qué enlaces específicos habrá). El foco está en que varios usuarios de la facción pro y anti han discutido repetidamente de manera incivilizada. Algunas de estas discusiones sucedieron dentro de la wiki, otras fuera de ella, pero ANI aún no ha resuelto el problema.

Diré que mi solicitud está relacionada con algunos temas clave que actualmente no se pueden resolver sin una tormenta de basura que se convierta en una RFC:

Estoy casi seguro de que el comité de arbitraje no aclarará por completo estos puntos si se acepta esto, pero espero que aclare el asunto y permita un debate no tóxico en el futuro. Atentamente, Dilettante 23:00, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Swatjester El punto es que varios usuarios de las facciones pro y anti han discutido repetidamente de manera incivilizada . No espero que arbcom haga nada sobre la existencia de WPO ni que prohíba a la gente usar públicamente ambos sitios web (¡y obviamente no querría eso!). Sinceramente, Dilettante 23:23, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
TarnishedPath . La parte principal de la solicitud de caso público es sin duda si los editores de la facción "anti", en particular Lightburst , se han comportado de forma apropiada. Sin embargo, en la facción "pro" la conducta de AndyTheGrump fue anteriormente menos que estelar (notarás que me opuse a las sanciones) y voy a investigar un poco para ver si dicha conducta ha continuado en las discusiones que se han mencionado en WPO. Atentamente, Dilettante 15:42, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
AndyTheGrump , no voy a mentir y fingir que no he estado al tanto del hilo fuera de la wiki. Si quieres solicitar que se amplíe la lista, solicítalo. Ciertamente no me opongo a un cambio de alcance, aunque obviamente no puedo hablar en nombre de arbcom. Atentamente, Dilettante 15:56, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
TarnishedPath , te incluí porque una de las discusiones claves en torno a este caso tiene tu nombre y, en menor medida, porque Lightburst te incluyó en su lista de idiotas. No creo que merezcas ninguna sanción o advertencia, pero sí creo que te convertiste en el blanco de la ira de LB y, por lo tanto, te involucraste en este asunto. Atentamente, Dilettante 02:59, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tómatelo como quieras . Atentamente, Dilettante 03:46, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
LB está indefenso y probablemente se le aplicará la prohibición de acceso a la base de datos. Sin embargo, hay cuestiones pendientes relacionadas con la conducta de individuos fuera de la wiki que requieren evidencia privada (algunas de las cuales he enviado; tenga en cuenta, en particular, el último párrafo de mi primer correo electrónico). En otras palabras:+ 1A la sugerencia de Vanamonde93 . Atentamente, Dilettante 22:10, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Lightburst

Reconozco que mi comportamiento reciente ha sido disruptivo: me he sentido frustrado. Este verano envié un correo electrónico a Arbcom con quejas relacionadas con JSS/WPO. En lugar de ayudar, (Arb) Moneytrees, sintetizó y puso en práctica acusaciones de larga data de WPO sobre mí: MT programó la publicación de sus explosivas conclusiones para cuando yo estaba en ANI sobre WPO y JSS; admitió que se quedaron sentados sobre un informe durante un mes y lo publicaron durante mi ANI sobre WPO; protesté y MT escribió una larga lista de quejas sobre mí. MT dijo esto cuando JSS perdió su puesto de arbitraje por traicionar la confianza [enlace:

"Tengo en muy alta estima a Beeblebrox (JSS)" y "creo que eso me hizo demasiado parcial como para votar realmente sobre el tema". MT

Y cuando MT se recusó aquí, JSS le envió un mensaje a MT.

ATG inició el drama reciente, al anunciar en WPO que los artículos de Lightburst son "basura". Alertó a WPO sobre sus AfD y tuvieron una discusión paralela de AfD en WPO. JSS comentó en una discusión en el enlace de WPO, sospecho que cuando termine de escribir este comentario, LB se quejará de este hilo en la AFD. Cronología de JSS: Llevé a los miembros de WPO a ANI y MT descarriló la discusión con acusaciones sobre mí. JSS luego propuso inmediatamente sanciones para mí.

JSS ayuda a WPO con la interrupción en WP. Otros se mostraron preocupados en 2021. En 2024, JSS realizó un cierre de ANI involucrado que protegía el ATG de WPO. El 13 de julio de 2024, JSS publicó un ataque personal sobre @ Dronebogus : en el enlace de WPO

Acabo de nominar un montón de lo peor de su basura reciente para que sea eliminado... Commons no necesita alojar tu material casero de masturbación. JSS

Nota: JSS se dirigió al editor de WP a través de WPO? Sondeó y en WPO acusó a DB de subir un escondite de pajas (palabras de JSS). ¿Para poder masturbarse?

En julio de 2024, alguien cuestionó a WPO por referirse a mí como "imbécil e idiota". ATG respondió: Sí, la política de Wikipedia no se aplica aquí... ATG WPO coordina ataques en la wiki, los miembros participan en PA y disfrutan frustrando y publicando información confidencial sobre los editores de WP. Tarnished Path (TP) también ha sido disruptivo. Me siguen, intentan sancionarme constantemente, trolean, ¡incluso aquí! Puede que sea hora de un ban.

Puede que Arbcom no sea el foro adecuado: hay árbitros involucrados (JSS, ex, MT, actual). MT se ha recusado, pero se debería incluir a MT como parte. Los árbitros que son participantes de la WPO deberían recusarse, es decir, Guerillero es miembro/hizo valer una acusación de la WPO.

Si acepta el caso considere incluirlo en el alcance

  1. JSS debería ser desautorizado por dañar el proyecto, hacer campaña y usar asistentes personales (como masturbación). No se confiaba en él como ARB y, en función de su comportamiento fuera de la wiki, no se debería confiar en él como administrador.
  2. ATG podría ser sancionado por dañar el proyecto, interrumpirlo constantemente, hacer campaña y recibir avisos públicos.
  3. MT debería ser parte en este caso por sus ataques sin fundamento contra mí y el curioso momento en que formularon las acusaciones.
  4. El comité de arbitraje podría considerar sancionarme por mi comportamiento.
  5. El camino empañado podría enfrentar sanciones o Iban por trollearme en la wiki y me hacen referencia en el enlace de WPO, pura idiotez . Lightburst ( discusión ) 22:42, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Just Step Sideways

Bueno, aquí estamos por fin. La idea de un caso se ha estado discutiendo cada vez más en los diversos hilos extremadamente largos donde este problema ha estado enconándose. El último es culpa mía, pero en mi mente solo estaba denunciando el troleo y esperaba un bloqueo rápido por eso, pero en cambio... bueno... puedes ver lo que sucedió.

No me queda del todo claro cuál sería el alcance de un caso así, pero creo que la lista de discusiones anteriores muestra que tenemos un problema bastante insoluble aquí, y una revisión de esas discusiones seguramente mostrará que algunos usuarios hacen afirmaciones y acusaciones completamente extrañas, y si miramos al administrador de cierre de la página de discusión de ANI más reciente, también verá a un usuario que pide que se descarten por completo los comentarios de cualquiera que se considere "de WPO"[2]. Para su crédito, Daniel respondió de inmediato que no lo hizo y afirmó que no ignoré las contribuciones de aquellos que están confirmados o presuntamente tienen cuentas de WPO, no. Son editores de buena reputación y ofrecieron un argumento razonable que tuvo un apoyo de consenso. La declaración "una vez que dejas de lado los votos de WPO" es divisiva y la opinión de ignorar sus contribuciones al debate, nuevamente, no tuvo apoyo para hacerlo. Esta es la mentalidad que estamos viendo aquí, que comentar en WPO te hace menos wikipedista, que cualquiera que haya comentado allí es igualmente culpable de cualquier otra acción que haya sucedido allí, que ser objeto de comentarios de cualquier tipo allí excusa un comportamiento terrible aquí , que los usuarios necesitan "elegir un bando", etcétera.

Probablemente, el principal problema para el comité será la afirmación de que el hecho de que se hable de ti, se te ataque, se te revele, etc. en ese foro (no pretendo endulzar nada, todo eso pasa) tiene algún tipo de efecto atenuante que excusa la conducta en la wiki, como trollear, lanzar calumnias infundadas, tergiversar lo que se dijo en ese foro para desestimar los comentarios de alguien en ese foro, etc. El comité ha sostenido en el pasado que este no es el caso (si se desea, se puede proporcionar información sobre dónde encontrar esto en los archivos de correo electrónico), que podemos sentir cierto grado de simpatía por alguien en esa situación, pero eso no excusa su propio mal comportamiento. O, como me enseñó mi madre cuando era pequeña: dos errores no hacen un acierto.

Otro aspecto posible es la demonización sin pruebas de los usuarios que se atreven a contribuir a ambos sitios en la wiki, y el efecto amedrentador deseado al hacerlo. La forma en que siempre hemos hecho las cosas se resume básicamente en "proporciona alguna evidencia o cállate la boca" o supongo que simplemente WP:ASPERSIONS y acusaciones vagas, lo cual debe terminar. Si alguien es tan terrible, se pueden enviar pruebas por correo electrónico al comité. Si simplemente hizo un comentario en otro lugar que a alguien no le gusta, mala suerte.

Probablemente necesitaré una extensión de Word si esto avanza.

Bueno, digamos que solicito formalmente una extensión de palabra, ya que solo agregar esto me estaría excediendo un poco.
Gracias. Por el momento, quiero señalar que se agregó a Levivich como parte del grupo, algo que creo que cualquiera que esté mínimamente familiarizado con el reciente altercado estaría de acuerdo en que es correcto, y decidieron revertir esa incorporación.
Por lo tanto, si pensamos más en el posible alcance, dado que ahora parece que esto puede seguir adelante, diría que, además de algunos problemas de comportamiento obvios que la comunidad no ha podido gestionar, también hay problemas de interpretación de las políticas. Si bien el comité no puede ni debe dictar políticas, hay ciertas áreas limitadas en las que el comité debe necesariamente marcar el camino en cuanto a cómo se interpreta y se utiliza una política en la práctica, en este caso la política de supervisión y la política de deportaciones , que han sido relevantes en algunos de estos incidentes.

Se ha señalado (en WPO, el horror) que hay un caso anterior bastante antiguo: Wikipedia:Solicitudes de arbitraje/Sitios de ataque

Uno de los hallazgos dice : "...es difícil distinguir los sitios que critican a Wikipedia y a sus editores y administradores de los sitios que cometen acoso. Asimismo, cuando se proporciona información sobre las presuntas malas acciones de los usuarios de Wikipedia, puede resultar difícil diferenciar las quejas legítimas de las falsas, calculadas para presentar a un usuario bajo una luz falsa". Tal vez quieras reciclar ese si esto avanza. Solo da un paso al costado de este mundo... hoy 22:26, ​​23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Bueno, finalmente hemos escuchado a LB, ofreciendo una oración admitiendo que fue disruptivo, y varios párrafos sobre cómo otros usuarios lo obligaron a hacerlo. Me gusta particularmente que esté trayendo un comentario que hice en WPO sobre un problema en Commons, lo que reduce su relevancia para EN.WP a cero, y que de alguna manera mi mensaje en la página de discusión a Money es una especie de prueba irrefutable y no solo un comentario amistoso a un colega. Este es el tipo de demonización sin evidencia que ha estado sucediendo desde hace algún tiempo. Simplemente aléjate de este mundo... hoy 23:01, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que es necesario decir que en este punto estoy de acuerdo con LB: Guerillero probablemente debería recusarse aquí, no porque publique algo sobre WPO de vez en cuando, sino porque hay un tono un tanto prejuicioso en algunos comentarios que ha hecho, incluso aquí sobre esta solicitud de caso. Siempre es mejor evitar incluso la apariencia de parcialidad. Simplemente aléjate de este mundo... hoy 08:25, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Realmente tengo que discrepar con la afirmación de Joe a continuación de que el hilo de "artículos basura" es un problema. He descubierto que es lo más útil en WPO. El proyecto ha sido mejorado probablemente unos cientos de veces como resultado directo de las publicaciones allí, a veces mediante la eliminación, pero al menos con la misma frecuencia mediante la edición del contenido para hacerlo menos basura. Simplemente aléjate de este mundo... hoy 16:36, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La afirmación de FeydHuxtable de que la WPO "hacía de la brigada" el hilo de la ANI en LB es ridículamente falsa. Una buena parte de los comentarios casi unánimes en apoyo de esta afirmación provienen de personas que han criticado abiertamente a la WPO. Esto es bueno, ya que deja claro que los participantes con perspectivas muy variables pudieron analizar esto objetivamente y llegar a una conclusión común, pero lamentablemente este tipo de hipérbole exagerada sobre batallas y héroes es lo que hemos visto durante años, décadas incluso, de parte de miembros incondicionales de la ARS, y el Sr. Huxtable es sin duda una de las personas que ha alentado repetidamente esta mentalidad de campo de batalla bajo una fina capa de cortesía y preocupación por los demás. Simplemente apártate de este mundo... hoy 18:55, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Homeostasis07

Aunque Lightburst ha sido bloqueado, sigo creyendo que hay un caso que merece la atención de ArbCom. Como Hydrangeans señaló a continuación, los ataques fuera de Wiki y la Carta del Movimiento proporcionan una base sólida para que ArbCom examine y castigue a los usuarios por actividades fuera del sitio.

No tengo ni idea de los antecedentes que llevaron a los comentarios en un hilo reciente de ANI (quizás los miembros actuales de ArbCom estén al tanto de esa circunstancia y puedan aportar ideas al resto de la comunidad), pero ese comentario literalmente me dio escalofríos, hasta el punto de que no me siento cómodo comunicándome ni siquiera en privado con ArbCom. Como se ha señalado aquí en varias declaraciones y en las recusaciones, innumerables árbitros, administradores y CheckUsers son miembros de Wikipediocracy. He buscado en Wikipedia exhaustivamente. Por lo que puedo ver, no parece haber ninguna política o directriz específica que prohíba a los usuarios en estas posiciones de confianza compartir información sensible en un sitio web como WPO. Esto es una gran preocupación para mí de cara al futuro.

Como mínimo, este caso debería establecer una política clara que prohíba específicamente, con extremo prejuicio, compartir información sensible enviada a ArbCom y/o datos obtenidos por CU en cualquier sitio web externo , y la eliminación completa de cualquier permiso (acceso a datos de ARB/CU; función continua como administrador y/o burócrata) de cualquier usuario que haya abusado de su posición al publicar información sensible en otro lugar. Realmente no puedo imaginar que esta propuesta sea controvertida en absoluto. De hecho, toda la comunidad sin duda se sentiría más segura como resultado. Homeostasis07 ( discusión / contribuciones ) 02:53, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de AndyTheGrump

No entiendo cómo se podría esperar que alguien respondiera de manera significativa a una solicitud tan vaga. AndyTheGrump ( discusión ) 19:40 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Habiendo visto algunas de las declaraciones publicadas aquí después de la anterior, tal vez sugeriría que si algo útil debe surgir de esta solicitud de caso mal definido, debería consistir en un recordatorio a todos los interesados ​​de que las denuncias de presunta mala conducta deben estar respaldadas por pruebas cuando se soliciten, que las páginas de discusión de artículos, los debates de AfD, etc. no son foros apropiados para tales asuntos, y que hacer acusaciones repetidas, nebulosas e inverificables, ya sea nombrando a un colaborador de Wikipedia en particular o no, es disruptivo independientemente de dónde tenga lugar. No hace falta decir que este tipo de comportamiento no es exclusivo de los asuntos relacionados con la Wikipediocracia, sino que es algo común en las disputas en Wikipedia, y en WP:AN y WP:ANI en particular. Sospecho que muchos hilos de WP:ANI serían sustancialmente más cortos si se aplicara este principio básico. AndyTheGrump ( discusión ) 22:49, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dilettante , como dije en WPO, si viera alguna posibilidad realista de que este caso vaya a alguna parte, solicitaría que se amplíe la lista de partes. Sin embargo, tal como está la situación, no veo ningún mérito en hacerlo, ya que no se ha proporcionado nada que se acerque remotamente a una acusación específica basada en pruebas en mi contra. Y ese, en mi opinión, es el tema central aquí. Un caso basado en pruebas sobre acusaciones específicas ciertamente merece pruebas en respuesta, pero a falta de algo específico a lo que responder, agregar más partes a la lista no logra mucho más que ampliar el alcance para acusaciones más vagas de ida y vuelta. AndyTheGrump ( discusión ) 16:23, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En relación con los comentarios de Lightburst, me gustaría llamar la atención sobre un "principio" publicado recientemente por ArbCom en relación con el caso Yasuke, relativo a la "Participación en páginas de arbitraje", y en particular sobre lo siguiente: Las acusaciones de mala conducta deben estar respaldadas por pruebas claras o no deben formularse en absoluto. No entraré en más detalles sobre por qué considero que la publicación de Lightburst es problemática por ahora, pero confío en que ArbCom aplicará principios similares aquí. AndyTheGrump ( discusión ) 22:56 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Respondiendo de nuevo a las preguntas sobre el enfoque de este caso, si procede más, ya he dejado clara mi posición arriba - la comunidad necesita lidiar con la perturbación causada por "acusaciones repetidas, nebulosas e inverificables, ya sea que nombren a un colaborador particular de Wikipedia o no" que han plagado los tablones de anuncios, páginas de discusión, etc. En la medida en que este problema más amplio ha involucrado a la Wikipediocracia, la comunidad ahora ha lidiado con los dos principales infractores recientes en este sentido, y ahora podría ser mejor trazar una línea en el asunto, sin más acciones más allá de un recordatorio de que Wikipedia no es una plataforma para promover teorías de conspiración relacionadas con la "mente colmena" imaginaria de un sitio web externo menor, y que la culpa colectiva no es algo en la política de Wikipedia.
Aparte de eso, obviamente no puedo comentar ninguna prueba presentada en privado, ya que no la he visto. Hasta donde sé, ninguno de los participantes aquí ha presentado públicamente ninguna prueba sustancial de mala conducta específica por mi parte que esté dentro del ámbito de competencia de ArbCom. Y no voy a entrar en especulaciones sobre cuál podría ser el "alcance" legítimo de un caso construido en torno a pruebas hipotéticas que me conciernen personalmente. No tengo la información necesaria para responder de manera significativa.
Por último, espero que ArbCom considere oportuno dejar claro a quienes deseen lo contrario que no tienen intención de intentar vigilar Internet: ni siquiera las partes de la misma que contienen contenido crítico de Wikipedia y de su funcionamiento. Incluso si dicha crítica es irrespetuosa o incluso una absoluta basura (la Wikipediocracia puede albergar eso en alguna ocasión). Cualquier proyecto con la presencia en línea que Wikipedia tiene merece un escrutinio minucioso, y no es ni remotamente apropiado que Wikipedia intente limitar su alcance. No mientras Wikipedia aspire a la apertura y a la difusión del conocimiento. AndyTheGrump ( discusión ) 13:34 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Silver Seren

No estoy muy seguro de qué afirmar o abordar aquí en relación con esta presentación. Sobre el tema general en cuestión, supongo que todo lo que tengo que decir es que todos los miembros de Arbcom, pasados ​​y presentes, deberían ser más que conscientes de la larga historia de usuarios de Wikipediocracy involucrados en el acoso a docenas de editores de Wikipedia, lo que ha hecho que muchos de ellos abandonen el proyecto. Esto ha incluido la difusión masiva de información personal e incluso incidentes en los que se contactó a los empleadores de los editores para causarles algún daño debido a que editaban Wikipedia. Todo esto es una historia bien conocida que abarca años y este tipo de incidentes siguen ocurriendo una y otra vez. Las desviaciones del tipo "las actividades fuera de la wiki no son ejecutables para los editores actuales conocidos en la wiki" tienen cada vez menos fundamento a medida que se agrega cada nuevo incidente a la pila, en particular cuando los usuarios de WPO (al menos los que no están prohibidos) involucrados en el comentario despectivo y el acoso están comentando y actuando simultáneamente en las discusiones relacionadas en la wiki. Silver seren C 22:10, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de TarnishedPath

Si este caso sigue adelante, el punto central debería ser cómo la comunidad no ha sido capaz de lidiar con el comportamiento de Lightburst y aquellos que han descarrilado las discusiones al hacer ataques personales y lanzar calumnias, principalmente basándose en argumentos absurdos de culpabilidad por asociación. Véase el informe condenatorio de Moneytrees , que fue disculpado por miembros de esta comunidad en el hilo más amplio. Tar nis hed Path talk 22:57, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Dilettante : El foco está en que varios usuarios de las facciones pro y anti han discutido repetidamente de manera incivilizada . Si hay una facción pro, ¿puedes identificarla? Porque no veo ninguna. He visto a un montón de editores excusando el comportamiento de LB con argumentos absurdos de culpabilidad por asociación con respecto a WPO. Tar nis hed Path talk 09:08, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Dilettante escribes " TarnishedPath". La parte principal de la solicitud de caso público es ciertamente si los editores de la facción "anti", en particular Lightburst, se han comportado apropiadamente . ¿Puedes indicar sobre qué base me has agregado como parte propuesta? ¿Es simplemente porque estás insinuando que soy parte de la facción pro-WPO a la que te has referido? Si es así, ¿dónde está tu evidencia para una acusación tan infundada? Tar nis hed Path talk 00:44, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ HJ Mitchell , @ Levivich se eliminaron a sí mismos como parte propuesta en Special:Diff/1252678823 después de que los agregué debido a que continuamente afirman falsedades y hacen acusaciones que carecen de evidencia en múltiples hilos de temas. ¿Pueden informarme si está permitido que alguien se elimine a sí mismo como parte propuesta? De ser así, haré lo mismo. Tar nis hed Path talk 00:39, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Levivich , Dilettante me agregó a la lista de partidos sin ninguna explicación o evidencia suficiente que demuestre que yo hice una disrupción suficiente. ¿En qué se diferencia eso de que yo te agregue a ti? Espero que no estés proponiendo que el primero en actuar tenga una ventaja a la hora de definir qué comportamientos se examinan y cuáles no. Tar nis hed Path talk 03:13, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Levivich, de los enlaces anteriores se desprende claramente que usted ha participado repetidamente en ataques personales y ha lanzado calumnias y lo ha hecho sin pruebas. Muchos otros editores aquí coinciden en que usted debería ser parte en el caso y no veo ningún argumento por el que yo lo sería. Tar nis hed Path talk 03:29, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Guerillero , disculpas si eliminar o agregar partes está fuera de los procedimientos . No pude encontrar nada durante mi breve lectura y me parece que no permitir la adición de partes propuestas le da al solicitante una ventaja de ser el primero en actuar, lo que estoy seguro de que no sería la intención. Si este caso sigue adelante, sugeriría enfáticamente que Levivich sea una de las partes porque su conducta es central para múltiples discusiones sobre la conducta de Lightburst que se descarrilaron. Tar nis hed Path talk 09:07, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dado que Lightburst ahora está en WP:CBAN, no veo ninguna razón para que se presente un caso, ya que la comunidad finalmente se ocupó del problema. Este caso debería rechazarse. Tar nis hed Path talk 12:31, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Tryptofish

Esta presentación es una reacción exagerada y el problema no llega al nivel de requerir que ArbCom intervenga (a menos que surja alguna evidencia privada de acoso, que ArbCom tendría que abordar en privado). ArbCom debería rechazarla. -- Tryptofish ( discusión ) 19:15, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) Ya no estoy seguro de eso, así que no importa. -- Tryptofish ( discusión ) 22:53, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Daniel

En primer lugar, gracias a Dilettante por no incluirme en la lista de partidos; mi única participación ha sido cerrar el último mega-hilo de ANI según el consenso de las propuestas, por lo que estoy de acuerdo con no ser incluido (y, francamente, me alegro) aunque algunas personas en su lugar pueden haberlo hecho.

Pasé por aquí porque tanto Dilettante como JSS hicieron referencia a mis acciones o palabras. En este momento no tengo nada que agregar a mis palabras al cierre de ANI (incluidas las subsecciones relevantes) y la discusión posterior en la página de discusión de usuarios. Estoy de acuerdo con Dilettante en que el estado de ánimo actual de esta disputa en la wiki de hecho "se ha intensificado hasta el punto de que la mera mención de WPO puede descarrilar una discusión" . Lo que me hace sentir especialmente desanimado, ya que hay editores experimentados de buena fe por los que siento un inmenso respeto en ambos lados que se han visto atrapados en esto.

Por último, solo quiero reconocer que estaré tan disponible como sea posible para responder cualquier pregunta de los miembros del Comité si tienen alguna, aunque espero que mi participación tangencial signifique que esto no sea necesario; además, estaré viajando al exterior a partir de esta mañana, así que si me demoro un poco en hacerlo, pido disculpas de antemano.

Gracias,
Daniel ( discusión ) 20:01 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de JPxG

Esta presentación no tiene mucho sentido para mí como algo que sería mejor manejado por ArbCom, pero si este simplemente se convertirá en el lugar general para que todos digan lo que piensan sobre WPO, supongo que lo haré:

No creo que se deba bloquear a las personas aquí simplemente por publicar allí, ya que la mayoría de las personas allí actúan con normalidad.

Tampoco creo que debamos andar husmeando en algún otro sitio en busca de huellas dactilares e investigar qué editor usa qué seudónimo.

Creo que si publicas allí, identificándote abiertamente con el mismo nombre que usas aquí, y dices cosas extremadamente groseras sobre otros editores, o intentas conseguir apoyo para tus propias cruzadas en la wiki, la gente de aquí debería poder reprenderte por ello. No creo que esto sea "culpa colectiva" o "MALOS SITIOS".

Además, obviamente esto no es un problema para el comité, pero creo que las personas que administran el sitio deberían considerar decirle a los chicos de dox que dejen de hacerlo, ya que lo que hacen no solo es cruel y acosador, sino también inútil y estúpido. jp × g 🗯️ 20:05, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En respuesta a las publicaciones en WPO: cuando digo "dox" me refiero, principalmente, a la cosa donde un tipo publica una lista de los miembros de tu familia y fotos tuyas de Facebook, o se une a Discord para desplazarse por cientos de publicaciones y hacer un tablero de corcho con las direcciones de tus vacaciones familiares, no la extensa cosa de WP:OUTING que incluye "El usuario de Wikipedia Conezone863 escribió un artículo spam sobre Zombocom y el usuario de Twitter Conezone863 afirma ser el CEO de Zombocom". jp × g 🗯️ 02:42, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HJ Mitchell : Esta presentación no tiene mucho sentido para mí como algo que ArbCom manejaría mejor, no sé cómo decirlo más directamente. jp × g 🗯️ 01:39, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Carrite : ¿Te perdiste el comienzo de la oración, a saber: "esto obviamente no es un problema para el comité, pero"?

Declaración deCarrito

Es realmente irreflexivo y doloroso que el autor de la queja pueda presentar una propuesta de caso como esta sin hacerme parte. Quiero decir, con [decenas de miles] de publicaciones [nb 13,000+] hechas a WPO durante más de una década, uno pensaría que se podría improvisar algún tipo de acusación poco convincente acusándome de crímenes contra el estado. ¿Qué hace que Andy the Grump and Beebs sea tan especial? Y mi conexión entre mi nym de WP y mi nym de WPO se ha hecho claramente varias veces en la wiki, a diferencia de otras cuentas con nombres similares aquí y allá. Si vamos a rehacer el caso WP:BADSITES , al menos seamos minuciosos con el hachazo en esta propuesta para una pérdida de tiempo inútil de Arbcom. --Tim Davenport /// Carrite ( discusión ) 22:19, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) /// Randy de Boise en WPO. [ responder ]

@JPxG - Los "Dox Guys" no son wikipedistas y, por lo tanto, no se verían afectados por las sanciones en este caso; la política de la WPO con respecto a la doxificación no es la que probablemente creas que es. Carrite ( discusión ) 22:40 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@dilettante - Per: ¿Hasta qué punto, si es que hay alguno, se deberían considerar las publicaciones en WPO como una actividad de sondeo? (en relación con la discusión de Bent's Camp, el cierre reciente de Daniel y otras discusiones) — Sería interesante plantear el argumento de la actividad de sondeo. Bent's Camp es una ilustración perfecta de que "no hay camarilla", ya que éramos Andy y yo los que estábamos luchando por el destino de ese artículo, que mejoré significativamente durante el debate de AfD. Pero, por favor, organicen una RFC sobre ese tema; si es importante para ustedes, no es un asunto que incumba a Arbcom. (Bent's Camp fue una honesta diferencia de opinión entre eliminacionistas e inclusivos). Carrite ( discusión ) 23:28, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Mangoe - Per: Es tentador decir que si no te gusta que te critiquen allí, no hagas cosas que inviten a la crítica... - Es seguro decir que esta es exactamente la perspectiva de una abrumadora mayoría de los participantes de WPO. Carrite ( discusión ) 15:59, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me he sumado a este caso con la expectativa de que esto se desvíe hacia la cuestión del llamado "sondeo" y no creo que sea apropiado que Andy y Beebs sean señalados. Si este es un caso sobre hilos disruptivos en ANI, Levivich debería estar dentro y yo probablemente debería estar fuera, pero su experiencia puede variar. Carrite ( discusión ) 03:32 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@S Marshall - Tal vez sólo haya un par de docenas de personas activas en WPO, pero sólo hay un poco más de 200 administradores activos de facto en Wikipedia, así que todo es una cuestión de proporción. De hecho, si somos un círculo tan pequeño de malhechores prohibidos, ¿por qué tanta gente se está haciendo pis en los pantalones por "hacer campaña" y "hacer brigada"?
@Folly Mox - WPO no tiene páginas detalladas de permisos y prohibiciones formales, la política se deriva de la práctica tradicional y de líneas entendidas de lo que está dentro y fuera. Aquí está la respuesta de uno de los tres administradores del sitio a su consulta: "Hemos estado discutiendo la idea de una "política formal" sobre [doxing] durante los últimos 5-6 meses, de vez en cuando, pero en este momento estamos en una fase "inactiva". El hecho es que simplemente no surge tan a menudo. O es realmente obvio que la persona es una amenaza para la sociedad (o lo que sea) y Wikipedia debería hacer algo al respecto, o es igualmente obvio que no le hará ningún bien a nadie. Los casos límite... son bastante raros, si me preguntas. A veces podemos pasar un año entero o más sin ver uno, pero por la forma en que se asustan al respecto en WP, uno pensaría que sucede prácticamente todos los días". (Midsize Jake) - Agregaré que los administradores se comunican entre sí fuera de la vista del público; No pienses equivocadamente que cada decisión o acción es públicamente visible. Carrite ( discusión ) 16:41 28 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración deLiz

Aunque sé que aprecio que se haya iniciado un caso sobre la intersección entre Wikipedia y la Wikipediocracia, y que la WPO ha sido sin duda el centro de algunas discusiones animadas en los tablones de anuncios, creo que la presentación de Dilettante no ha logrado identificar cuál es el "problema" que se le pide al comité de arbitraje que resuelva. El hecho de que sea controvertido no requiere, en sí mismo, la intervención, especialmente de ARBCOM, y dado que esta solicitud se acaba de publicar, tal vez la respuesta a mi pregunta se aclare en el transcurso de los próximos días. Pero el hecho de que se trate de un tema candente no es suficiente para que el comité acepte un caso; debe haber alguna mala conducta o alguna disputa insoluble y no veo que eso exista en esta solicitud de caso. Para que conste, creo que el tema es adecuado para su consideración, pero no creo que esta solicitud de caso defina lo que se le pide al comité que juzgue o por qué se ha incluido a ciertos editores como partes simplemente porque participaron en algunas de estas discusiones. Es decir, no estoy seguro de qué mala conducta en ESTE PROYECTO se está destacando como motivo de preocupación. L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 22:20, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En cuanto al punto de Soni, no recuerdo esto de mis días como asistente de arbitraje, pero ¿puede un editor simplemente eliminarse como parte involucrada de un caso presentado por otro editor? Pensé que esta era una solicitud que se podía plantear, pero los editores no pueden simplemente eliminar su nombre. L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 02:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Swatjester

No está claro de qué se trata esta solicitud de caso. ¿Se trata de la existencia de WPO? ¿Debate sobre WPO en la wiki? ¿De acusaciones de mala conducta fuera de la wiki? ¿Daniel está cerca? A partir de la presentación, no puedo determinar cuál es el alcance de este caso.

Ignorar; en el tiempo transcurrido entre el inicio de esto, la distracción y la vuelta a ello, se aclaró la solicitud para que fuera más específica. No creo que este sea el lugar adecuado para responder a la pregunta de si las publicaciones de WPO deberían considerarse campañas de sondeo; de hecho, no creo que esa pregunta sea realmente relevante para WPO directamente en absoluto. Probablemente, haya valor en una discusión generalizada en WP:CANVAS sobre si los términos y definiciones de esa página (en particular, la parte de WP:STEALTH ) se aplican a una discusión fuera de la wiki sobre una discusión en la wiki en circunstancias en las que no está claro o es cuestionable que la intención de influir en el resultado de una discusión de una manera particular esté presente; o cómo interpretar eso en el contexto de un foro donde los usuarios tendrán opiniones e intenciones diferentes, a menudo contradictorias. Pero no veo por qué debería hacerse eso aquí en lugar de corregir la directriz que es demasiado ambigua. ⇒ ¡SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:27 21 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Softlavender

Esta solicitud de caso me parece inútil, porque no se mencionan otros problemas aparte de WP vs. WPO, en los que ArbCom no tiene jurisdicción y no desea supervisar. Si hay problemas que solo se pueden plantear en privado a ArbCom, no hay motivo para presentar un caso (debería ser un asunto interno únicamente) y la comunidad no puede hacer comentarios.

Si el caso es contra la (supuesta) disrupción o perturbación a largo plazo por parte de Lightburst, y/o su mención excesiva de WPO en WP, entonces el caso debería ser contra Lightburst exclusivamente, no contra una misteriosa camarilla de personas que publican en WPO o publican en WP sobre WPO.

Sugiero que el comité rechace este caso. También sugiero que el solicitante es aparentemente demasiado novato (ha estado en la wiki durante apenas dos años) como para saber cómo funcionan ArbCom y los casos ArbCom. Softlavender ( discusión ) 01:19, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Para agregar a lo anterior: el único elemento/pregunta claramente establecido en la solicitud del caso del solicitante no es algo que ArbCom haga o maneje. Es decir: "¿En qué medida, si es que hay alguna, se deben considerar las publicaciones en WPO como sondeos?" ArbCom no establece políticas ni decide sobre sondeos. WP:CANVASSING fuera de la wiki es , por definición , WP:CANVASSING fuera de la wiki .

Por lo tanto, sigo recomendando rechazar esta solicitud de caso público. Cualquier infracción grave que solo pueda manejarse mediante comunicación privada debe manejarse mediante comunicación privada. Softlavender ( discusión ) 03:50 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Teniendo en cuenta las últimas acusaciones de Lightburst, independientemente de si se sostienen o no, ahora cambio mi recomendación para aceptar . El hecho de que haya un árbitro en ejercicio (y uno anterior) involucrado, no estoy seguro de cuán objetivo puede ser ArbCom, incluso con la recusación, pero espero que se comporten de la manera más estricta. Softlavender ( discusión ) 03:47, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Dronebogus

Yo también estoy confundido sobre lo que se supone que esto debe abordar específicamente. ArbCom no puede agitar una varita mágica y arreglar todo lo que está mal aquí (y hay MUCHO que está mal aquí). Cuando la gente (incluyéndome a mí) se queja de WPO, generalmente se trata de cómo los numerosos hilos dedicados a burlarse e insultar a editores específicos podrían verse como una denuncia, un acoso fuera de la wiki y una campaña/aliento para ataques dentro de la wiki. Eso parece obvio. ¿Por qué andamos con rodeos aquí? (Perdón por todas las metáforas mezcladas) Dronebogus ( discusión ) 07:05, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ FeydHuxtable : Para que conste, detesto a WPO y, aun así, fácilmente habría votado para prohibir Lightburst. Desprecio cualquier tipo de acoso organizado contra cualquiera, pero el comportamiento de LB (tácticas de campaña inclusivas de línea dura, manipulación, incivilidad crónica, la lista de "Richards", comentarios que rayan en lo transfóbico y antisemita) es claramente inaceptable. Realmente deberían haber sido bloqueados hace mucho tiempo para su beneficio y el nuestro. Dronebogus ( discusión ) 20:15, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Mangoe

Esto no debería ir a ninguna parte, excepto quizás como un gran WP:BOOMERANG . Homeostasis07 hace una afirmación falsa sobre el doxing, y una vez más es el momento de la ventilación de quejas contra WPO. La gente va a crear sitios y foros críticos con WP; la gente en esos foros no se va a sentir obligada por las reglas de WP allí, y los participantes de WP van a aparecer en esos sitios tanto para participar en las críticas como para tener discusiones que realmente no son posibles en WP. Es tentador decir que si no te gusta que te critiquen allí, no hagas cosas que inviten a la crítica, pero en cualquier caso me parece que casi toda la disrupción centrada en WPO es causada en este extremo por gente que hace un escándalo al respecto. Este caso presentado parece ser un ejemplo mal enfocado de esto último. Mangoe ( discusión ) 12:49, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Todo el asunto de cómo se está haciendo campaña en el hilo de "artículos basura" es un ejemplo de cómo la gente tiene expectativas poco realistas sobre las críticas a WP. En primer lugar, según mi rápida encuesta, la mayoría de los artículos que aparecen allí no reciben intentos de eliminarlos; la mayoría siguen siendo "basura". Pero, además, no es de extrañar que un sitio crítico tenga un hilo sobre esos artículos. Entonces, ¿qué se supone que deben hacer sus miembros cuando ven uno de estos artículos y ven que, de hecho, merece ser eliminado? ¿Se supone que deben quedarse de brazos cruzados? Personalmente, no siento tal obligación y he actuado en función de la información que he encontrado en el sitio muchas veces. Si te tomas en serio la mejora de WP, es útil que alguien te señale problemas específicos . Y tal vez me lo haya perdido, pero esto parece ser otro asunto de Airing of Grievances que no está relacionado con los conflictos planteados por Dilletante. Mangoe ( discusión ) 15:55, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Rhododendrites

Hay dos formas en las que arbcom puede tomar este caso.

La solución más sencilla es considerar si debería prohibirse la interacción entre [determinadas partes de WPO] y [Lightburst]. Meh a eso.

El camino más amplio es examinar el status quo con respecto a WPO, la información que surge allí, WP:HARASS , WP:CANVAS y WP:COI .

Aquí está el status quo, tal como lo veo:

Sin embargo, me inclinaría a sugerir que arbcom rechace este amplio alcance, en gran parte porque temo que nos encontraremos con un caso largo y feo que terminará haciendo más daño que bien. Creo que arbcom normalmente es reacio a extender su jurisdicción fuera de la wiki, excepto en casos verdaderamente extremos. Mientras el objetivo "lo merezca" (es decir, esté equivocado en algún sentido) y mientras las cosas más extremas provengan de aquellos que ya están prohibidos o no son wikipedistas conocidos, sería demasiado fácil para arbcom bendecir extraoficialmente el acoso/insulto/proselitismo fuera de la wiki y/o alentar a usuarios ya prohibidos o no identificados que hacen eso y peor aún, hacer bromas con ellos, actuar como sus representantes y/o tomar medidas dentro de la wiki en función de lo que encuentren.Las rododendritas hablan\\ 12:43, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Por cierto, me opongo firmemente a un ámbito de "disputas dentro de la wiki", que establece un ámbito asimétrico por el cual las peores acciones de un grupo quedan en su mayoría ocultas porque tienen lugar fuera de la wiki y las peores acciones del otro grupo (que se toman en gran medida en respuesta a lo que sucede fuera de la wiki) están sujetas a escrutinio. Estás preparando un caso que, según lo que escribí anteriormente, probablemente solo le dará el sello de aprobación del arbcom a la coordinación/acoso fuera de la wiki. Arbs, ustedes son los únicos aquí que pueden lidiar con asuntos fuera de la wiki. Si van a tener un ámbito amplio pero se ponen anteojeras para no ver el panorama completo, están demostrando que el arbcom no puede manejar asuntos fuera de la wiki y, como tal, están proporcionando evidencia a aquellos que ven la necesidad de la participación de T&S/UCoC en asuntos de enwiki (que tampoco es algo que yo quiera). Vayan más acotados o más amplios.Las rododendritas hablan\\ 14:26, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Rhododendrites Lo "universal" en el UCoC es pan-Wikimedia, no pan-Internet. Lo peor que puede hacer ArbCom es prohibirle a alguien el acceso a la Wikipedia en inglés. Podemos mostrarle la puerta a alguien si sabemos que es la misma persona en enwiki y WPO y que su conducta allí es incompatible con seguir siendo miembro de esta comunidad, pero una prohibición de enwiki no tendrá absolutamente ningún efecto sobre lo que puede hacer en Wikipediocracia. Y no tenemos palancas disponibles contra las personas que no son miembros de nuestra comunidad. HJ Mitchell | ¿Un centavo por tu opinión? 15:02, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy sugiriendo que tengas algún poder sobre los sitios fuera de la wiki. Has sugerido un alcance de "disputas dentro de la wiki". Eso no suena, para mí, como si tuvieras la intención de considerar cosas como si sabemos que son la misma persona en enwiki y WPO y su conducta allí es incompatible con seguir siendo miembro de esta comunidad ; suena como limitar el alcance a lo que está "en la wiki". Me alegra escuchar que he entendido mal, pero te animo a que reformules el alcance para dejarlo claro. Gracias. —Las rododendritas hablan\\ 15:06, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo una nota sobre la "libertad de asociación" y preguntas sobre por qué alguien mencionaría las acciones de otras personas en WPO en este caso (después de todo, no creo que nadie haya acusado a las partes nombradas aquí de participar en cosas como el doxing). Hay una diferencia entre la libertad de asociación y producir activamente objetivos potenciales/alentar pasivamente a personas que sabes que participan en ese tipo de comportamiento. Nadie está examinando a tus peluqueros o compañeros de tragos de la universidad. Están examinando a las personas a las que recurres cuando quieres darle trabajo a un wikipedista pero no ser responsable de ello, sabiendo muy bien lo que puede pasarles a los wikipedistas que "lo merecen" allí. Si vas a WPO y dices "mira a este wikipedista [con un conflicto de intereses/escribiendo artículos de baja calidad/causando drama/defendiendo la WMF]" o agregas evidencia/cuentas chistes en un hilo de ese tipo, sabiendo lo que podría pasar como resultado, no se trata solo de con quién te estás asociando sino de lo que estás haciendo activamente.
Aunque, por si fuera poco, esto hace que la situación sea aún peor, ya que Lightburst está prohibido. Sería mucho más sencillo si los usuarios de WPO pudieran ir a por alguien que pudiera resistirse a empeorar las cosas para sí mismos...Las rododendritas hablan\\ 11:15, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oh, creo que necesito solicitar una extensión. Si elimino esta línea, creo que mi parte de esta sección cabe en 1000 palabras.Las rododendritas hablan\\ 11:17, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Robert McClenon (Wikipediocracia)

El editor de la presentación de la demanda explicó de pasada por qué la Comisión ArbCom debería abrir un caso y llevar a cabo una audiencia probatoria cuasijudicial. El registro de casos anteriores de WP:ANI es la razón. La razón no es el sitio web Wikipediocracy (WPO), sino la reiterada falta de civismo en el sitio web Wikipedia, que estalla repetidamente en WP:ANI . La Comisión ArbCom se ha creado para tratar las disputas de conducta que la comunidad no puede resolver. La comunidad no ha podido resolver los brotes recurrentes de falta de civismo , por al menos dos razones. La primera es que las actitudes hacia WPO dividen a la comunidad, con algunos editores pensando, razonablemente, que el sitio es demasiado a menudo tóxico y dañino, y otros editores pensando, razonablemente, que los editores de Wikipedia deberían tener libertad de asociación y se les debería permitir hablar en nombre de Wikipedia incluso en un sitio malo. Esto significa que la comunidad está dividida. La segunda razón es que identificar fallas requiere una revisión cuidadosa, e identificar los remedios para la falta de civismo requiere aún más deliberación. Es necesario hacer algo. ¿Deberían prohibirse temas de discusión sobre WPO? ¿Deberían prohibirse interacciones , que a veces se juegan pero a veces son necesarias? ¿Hay uno o dos editores que sean negativos para la comunidad y a quiénes se debería prohibir el acceso al sitio ? La comunidad ha intentado resolver el antagonismo sin éxito, y el ArbCom tiene una responsabilidad.

También diré algo que dije antes del caso de las Elecciones Históricas y que fue ignorado. Si ArbCom actúa en gran medida sobre la base de evidencia privada, debería hacer todo el esfuerzo posible para hacer pública la mayor cantidad posible de evidencia. La transparencia mejora la confianza. En este caso de WPO, gran parte de la evidencia consiste en intercambios en la wiki que se repiten y pueden continuar.

No sé si ArbCom debería o puede involucrarse en lo que sucede fuera de la wiki en WPO, pero ArbCom debería ocuparse de los desagradables intercambios dentro de la wiki. Robert McClenon ( discusión ) 17:22 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios añadidos

He leído el WP:ANI del 17 de octubre de 2024 sobre la publicación por parte de Lightburst de ataques personales contra otros siete editores. La respuesta de la propia comunidad ilustra que la comunidad no está a la altura de las circunstancias. La publicación de esos comentarios fue una exageración y requirió alguna sanción. La única sanción que tomó la comunidad fue contra otro editor. Esto demuestra además que los ataques personales en la wiki son una situación con la que la comunidad no está lidiando y que se requiere una revisión cuasijudicial por parte de ArbCom. Una de las razones por las que la comunidad no tomó medidas contra Lightburst es que varios editores pensaron que ArbCom debería tomar el caso. Robert McClenon ( discusión ) 05:07, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Respuesta a HJ Mitchell

Los incidentes enumerados por Dilettante, y especialmente el mal uso de la página de usuario por parte de Lightburst, son disputas de largo plazo y los procesos comunitarios no los han abordado.

Declaración de Star Mississippi

Creo que hay mérito en un caso, público, privado o de otro tipo, ya que el status quo actual de "cada vez que alguien que publica en WPO o es el sujeto de una publicación de WPO es llevado a ANI, se convierte en un referéndum sobre WPO que descarrila el tema en cuestión" no es sostenible. Los hilos recientes de Lightburst son solo los últimos, y no ha habido una resolución real del problema subyacente debido a la falta de evidencia. Star Mississippi 18:44, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Guerillero Creo que Homeostasis07, la conducta de Silver Seren también debe ser parte de esto. El drama de Camp/Lake es un artículo de Lightburst, pero si bien terminó en ANI, podría haber tenido una resolución si no fuera por los descarrilamientos interminables en WPO Bad! Divulgación, fui yo quien propuso la prohibición del tema en Homeostasis después del último Star Mississippi 16:24, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Rhododendrites si bien estoy de acuerdo en gran medida con usted en que deberían tomar el caso, y lo dije en la revisión detallada de AN, no estoy de acuerdo con esta evaluación: la única sanción que surgió de esto fue una prohibición de tema... para alguien que criticara a WPO. La prohibición de tema se debió a que Homeostasis se negó rotundamente a respaldar sus acusaciones durante gran parte de la discusión y luego, cuando lo hicieron, se demostró que no tenían fundamento. Como proponente, no tengo ningún problema con que Homeostasis contribuya aquí o en otros canales para ayudar a ArbComm a formar un consenso, pero "WPO es malo pero no quiero/no puedo decir por qué" en al menos dos hilos es la razón por la que fueron sancionados, no porque criticaran a WPO. Star Mississippi 18:01, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Moneytrees , por si hace falta decirlo, me parece bien tu explicación. El momento no fue el ideal, pero fue lo que sucedió dados los factores que describiste. Por lo que sé de ti como editor y con cualquier cargo, siempre actúas de buena fe.
(En general) Creo que es necesario un caso. Lb es el último pararrayos, pero no es el único problema relacionado con todos los hilos desde julio AfD. Star Mississippi 01:25, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Barkeep49

Estoy de acuerdo con el análisis de Star Missisippi, por lo que no lo repetiré. También sugeriría a los árbitros que han dicho que creen que hay más casos que ArbCom podría manejar que este parece un buen ejemplo de uno que no es tan grave como un PIA pero que la comunidad, por las razones articuladas por Star, no ha podido manejar y para el cual una decisión vinculante puede ayudar a la comunidad a evitar conflictos futuros. Saludos, Barkeep49 ( discusión ) 18:49, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Me sorprende que tantos Arbs parezcan haber pensado que el único ámbito de aplicación era si prohibir o no Lightburst y, por lo tanto, una vez hecho eso, no hay nada que ArbCom pueda hacer. Como se señaló anteriormente, creo que la idea subyacente de Star Missippi de que el status quo actual de "cada vez que alguien que publica en WPO o es el sujeto de una publicación de WPO es llevado a ANI, se convierte en un referéndum sobre WPO que descarrila el tema en cuestión" no es sostenible, ya que un ámbito de aplicación todavía se siente apropiado para que ArbCom lo maneje, aunque tal vez esto se pueda hacer por moción en lugar de caso (aunque para mí la ventaja de un caso sería algunos principios bien pensados ​​​​sobre esto que podrían liberarnos de la binariedad inútil de BADSITES en la que todavía parecemos estar atrapados). Saludos, Barkeep49 ( discusión ) 00:29, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Andrevan

No soy parte, no estoy involucrado, no revisé el hilo reciente. En el pasado, sin embargo, WPO ha sido un pararrayos, así que creo que, si es posible, sería bueno que ArbCom intentara arreglar eso. El patrón que he visto es acoso fuera de la wiki, empleos de Joe, troleo, doxing, etc., en WPO, luego, cuando se enfrenta a una discusión en la wiki o reenvíos a ArbCom, hay entonces bumeranes que terminan convirtiendo a la persona acosada en el agresor. Esto tiene un efecto paralizante a la hora de abordar el acoso fuera de la wiki. No hablo de mí, pero sé de 2 usuarios que fueron acosados ​​persistentemente fuera de la wiki a través de WPO y realmente no tienen un recurso, y esto está dando como resultado que se sientan infelices y/o temerosos, y crea un efecto paralizante en su participación en Wikipedia. No daré más detalles, pero estoy seguro de que cualquiera puede encontrar muchos ejemplos de situaciones similares. Por lo tanto, creo que una política moderna de "SITIO MALO" sería útil para su bien. Andre 🚐 23:11 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Soni

Recomiendo que este caso tenga un alcance mayor que el de Lightburst. Si bien Lightburst sigue siendo el centro de atención de muchos dramas relacionados con WPO, está lejos de ser el único editor problemático en ese sentido. Hay incidentes de WP:CANVASS claro , así como muchos más casos de incivilidad exacerbados por tener una discusión paralela sobre WPO para algunos de estos editores.

Además, me preocupa que tanto el Usuario:Levivich como el Usuario:TarnishedPath aparentemente se hayan retirado [3] [4] como parte de este caso. No sabía que las partes pueden simplemente "decir no" unilateralmente a ser parte de un caso de Arbcom de esta manera. Creo que hay motivos suficientes para considerar a ambos como partes de esto. Soni ( discusión ) 02:11, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Levivich

@ Soni : y @arbs/clerks: Me quité a mí mismo de la lista de partes porque no estaba incluido como parte en la presentación original. Tarnish Path me agregó a la lista de partes sin ninguna explicación (o evidencia); no creo que los editores estén autorizados a hacer esto, especialmente porque hizo que pareciera que Dilettante me incluyó como parte en la presentación original cuando ese no era el caso. Entonces lo revertí. Pensé que eso perdería menos tiempo que señalarlo a un secretario y pedirle a un secretario que lo revirtiera, pero si así es como arbs/clerks preferirían que lo maneje, entonces eso es lo que haré en el futuro. Sobre si debería ser parte: no veo ninguna diferencia de interrupción por mi parte que justifique que sea parte en este caso, pero si alguien quiere que explique o comente alguna de mis ediciones, con gusto lo haré. Levivich ( discusión ) 02:43 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@TarnishedPath : Sí, creo que el solicitante de una solicitud de arbitraje debería poder decidir qué partes deben figurar en la lista de partes de su solicitud. No creo que los editores deban agregar nombres a la lista de partes del solicitante ni eliminar nombres de la lista de partes del solicitante. Creo que los árbitros son quienes deciden qué partes se incluyen en el caso real. Si alguien más, además del solicitante o los árbitros, piensa que alguien debería o no ser parte, creo que debería escribirlo en su propia sección (con diferencias o enlaces; evidencia privada por correo electrónico). Creo que todo esto es un procedimiento de arbitraje estándar. Levivich ( discusión ) 03:20, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Harry: Creo que arbcom debería revisar la evidencia de acoso y sondeo dentro y fuera de la wiki que involucra a WPO, y evitar que vuelva a suceder (o al menos reducir sus efectos en la wiki) sancionando a los usuarios que han participado en este comportamiento, y tal vez aclarar políticas como quién puede vincular a qué y cuándo.

Ejemplo: observen lo que algunas de las personas en la lista de partidos están diciendo en WPO sobre mí y otros editores que participan aquí, ahora mismo, durante esta solicitud de caso. Consideren lo que hicieron los tribunales cuando Trump recurrió a las redes sociales durante su caso judicial y habló sobre las personas involucradas en el caso judicial mientras el caso estaba en curso (orden de silencio para evitar la intimidación de testigos), y tal vez hagan algo similar aquí. Levivich ( discusión ) 17:00, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Según WP:RECUSAL , me gustaría remitir mi solicitud de recusación de Guerillero al comité para que tome una decisión. Creo que 99 puestos (11 al año durante 9 años) en WPO son una "implicación personal significativa" con WPO. La misma solicitud para cualquier otro árbitro que tenga una implicación similar con WPO (si la hubiera). Gracias, Levivich ( discusión ) 16:45, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ S Marshall : La Wikipediocracia puede ser ignorada con total seguridad . Por lo que sé, no publican tu foto para burlarse de ella, no publican tu información personal ni los nombres y fotografías de tu familia, no interfieren con tu edición, no han pasado años burlándose de ti, nunca han propuesto sanciones contra ti y luego han votado a favor de esas sanciones. Si hicieran algo de eso, no te resultaría tan fácil ignorarlos. Levivich ( discusión ) 23:20 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de GhostOfDanGurney

¿Se trata de una solicitud sobre WPO o se trata de una solicitud relacionada con el último arrebato de Lightburst? Las recientes preguntas sobre el estatus de TarnishedPath como parte me han llevado a preguntar esto. Sin duda, estuvieron involucrados en la situación de Lightburst con respecto a Bent's Camp Resort , pero no estoy seguro de que un recuento de 13 publicaciones sobre WPO (como ellos mismos admiten) justifique que se los nombre como parte en un caso sobre WPO, especialmente si solo Lightburst presentó quejas sobre esas 13 publicaciones.

De todas formas, ArbCom debería aceptar, como opino yo, que la "lista de idiotas" de Lightburst y otras transgresiones recientes habrían hecho que incluso un editor establecido fuera rápidamente inhabilitado en ANI si no hubiera sido por la facción anti-WPO que salió en su defensa. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (discusión) 03:11 23 oct 2024 (UTC)   [ responder ]

Por si sirve de algo, el apoyo a la prohibición comunitaria de Lightburst ha ganado fuerza en un nuevo hilo de ANI después de que Lightburst comentara en algunas de las páginas de elección de administrador, y salió a la luz una advertencia de AE ​​de octubre de 2023 sobre comentarios transfóbicos. Si esta propuesta de prohibición comunitaria fracasa, estoy seguro de que estos volverán a aparecer como prueba si la conducta de Lightburst es fundamental para el alcance de este caso. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (discusión) 03:57 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]  

Declaración de Yngvadottir

Me he sumado a esta propuesta de caso mal definida desde que me involucré en el tema de Wikipediocracia en User talk:Levivich#ANI (y probablemente una o dos veces en otros lugares, incluido AN/I mismo), y dejé en claro al menos en el intercambio con Levivich que soy (a partir de este año) miembro de Wikipediocracia (con el mismo nombre que aquí en la wiki; y he sido lector y he hecho uso del sitio como fuente de información durante años; allí me han agradecido varias veces por mejorar los artículos). Si el comité acepta un caso con la participación en Wikipediocracia o la acusación de campaña en Wikipediocracia formando parte de su alcance, secretarios, por favor hagan lo necesario y avancen esto.

Sin embargo, no creo que el comité deba aceptar esta solicitud de caso. No me resulta evidente que las cuestiones que se han planteado vayan más allá de nuestra política de civilidad existente, a saber, la prohibición de hacer acusaciones sin pruebas. El Comité Arb simplificó recientemente el proceso de presentación de información privada; esto debería haber bastado para aclarar que no hay ninguna excepción a la política contra las acusaciones por actividades fuera de la wiki en sitios que contienen material que uno puede desaprobar, incluso cuando ese material es abiertamente crítico del estado actual de Wikipedia. Yngvadottir ( discusión ) 04:06, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

La declaración recientemente agregada por Lightburst interpreta las fuertes críticas a sus artículos y respuestas a las críticas en la wiki como ataques personales, alegando coordinación en tales ataques en WPO sobre la base de que Andy señaló el hecho evidente de que los foros fuera de la wiki no están sujetos a las reglas de WP contra el uso de términos como "idiota". Esto es una excusa débil para respaldar acusaciones de acoso de amplio alcance (y el enlace a WPO está obsoleto, ¿no es así?). La crítica del trabajo de alguien es completamente legítima incluso en la wiki; esta no es una plataforma de blogs, sino una colaboración. Incluso las "palabras groseras" no están prohibidas aquí, y el examen de ese enlace mostrará al menos un usuario que aporta evidencia específica para justificar el uso de "idiota" e "imbécil".

Además, Lightburst afirma que los miembros de WPO disfrutan frustrando y publicando información confidencial de los editores de WP . Esto y una declaración más completa de Homeostasis07 : "Los usuarios que se sienten libres de publicar información confidencial, amenazar, acosar y ser incívicos [en WPO] mientras pretenden ser cantantes del coro en el sitio" (en AN/I; el usuario es nombrado como parte) son ataques generales sin respaldo. (De manera similar, la referencia de Lightburst a los "trolls fuera de la wiki" a Licks-rocks ). Levivich presentó las críticas a la edición de Lightburst como ilegítimas porque eran fuera del sitio, o porque los mismos usuarios eran más educados en la wiki (también en AN/I; el usuario no es nombrado actualmente como parte). En la misma publicación, Levivich pidió a los editores activos en WPO que "reconocieran sus errores", y nuestro intercambio en su página de usuario lo muestra difamando a los participantes de WPO por asociación (la referencia es a Vigilant).

La política de WP contra la divulgación de información protege el derecho de los editores a tener vidas en otros sitios (y fuera de Internet), y de las coincidencias de nombres de usuario y de la manipulación de información. Por ejemplo, Liz no debería estar sujeta a especulaciones sobre si es la usuaria de WPO Liz99, que hizo la pregunta a la que Andy respondió. La política de civilidad de WP protege a los editores contra acusaciones sin fundamento, como las acusaciones de Homeostasis07 de "doxing" (exportación de información) y posiciones extremas de "nosotros contra ellos" como las que han adoptado Lightburst y Levivich. Busco sumarme como parte para representar el derecho de los editores a la libre asociación y a que sus motivos no sean impugnados de manera incivilizada, y también en solidaridad con Carrite , que hizo los esfuerzos más enérgicos y útiles para salvar el artículo de Lightburst, después de haber sido alertada sobre su estado por WPO, lo que socava seriamente los argumentos contra la participación de WPO. Yngvadottir ( discusión ) 03:45, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

@ Folly Mox : No soy Carrite, pero en relación con la política de la WPO con respecto a la identificación (exposición) de editores de Wikipedia, aquí hay una declaración del 25 de octubre de un administrador de la WPO (hilo público), vinculada, en respuesta a mi consulta, en esta declaración del 27 de octubre del mismo administrador de la WPO (hilo público diferente). Yngvadottir ( discusión ) 10:16, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Aaron Liu

Quiero señalar que Lightburst, un partido principal y vital aquí, no ha editado desde 3 minutos después de que agregó su "galería de delincuentes" el 17 de octubre. Si bien estoy de acuerdo en que este es un problema que quizás solo ArbCom pueda abordar,La inactividad de Lightburst debe tenerse en cuenta en la decisión de los árbitros sobre si proceder con un caso abierto.Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 12:50 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ AirshipJungleman29 ¿Podrías explicarme cómo lo sabes? Gracias. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 15:44 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, lo he marcado como un problema porque ArbCom parece tener constancia de pruebas privadas de que Lightburst lo sabía. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 16:12 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con Joe Roe. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 14:14 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con Loki. Incluso una simple moción para permitir enlaces a editores que hayan vinculado su cuenta de WP sería buena. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 00:39, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de AirshipJungleman29

En respuesta a un comentario anterior, el comité debe saber que, a pesar de la reciente inactividad de Lighburst en wiki, él está al tanto de los eventos recientes y ha hecho esfuerzos por mantenerse actualizado. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 15:00, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No lo he dicho públicamente Aaron Liu , pero ahora recuerdo que al menos algunos miembros del comité lo saben. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 15:53 ​​23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé qué propósito tiene esto después del bloqueo de Lightburst, ya que todo el torbellino se centró en él. Si no se puede identificar un nuevo foco, el caso debe rechazarse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 12:46 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Homeostasis07 , en tus "extensas búsquedas en Wikipedia" sobre las responsabilidades de los administradores y CheckUsers, puede que te haya resultado útil consultar las páginas sobre las responsabilidades de los administradores o CheckUsers. Puedes encontrarlas yendo a Wikipedia:Administrators o Wikipedia:CheckUser y desplazándote hacia abajo. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 11:41 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Vanamonde

Creo que ARBCOM debería aceptar un caso. El comportamiento fuera de la wiki de los editores de en.wiki está firmemente dentro del ámbito de ARBCOM siempre y cuando se cruce con las políticas de civilidad, acoso y sondeo (y otras cosas, pero se ha alegado que son relevantes), y sólo ARBCOM puede tomar una determinación definitiva si eso ha sucedido aquí. Además, creo que no es razonable esperar que mis colegas en la wiki traten los comentarios públicos que hago fuera de la wiki como Vanamonde93 como algo completamente divorciado de mi presencia en la wiki. Ningún lugar de trabajo razonable toleraría que sus empleados se atacaran entre sí en un foro público; nosotros tampoco deberíamos hacerlo. Por el contrario, los ataques fuera de la wiki tampoco pueden usarse para justificar un comportamiento tremendamente inapropiado en la wiki: muchos de nosotros hemos enfrentado y presenciado acoso y no hemos perdido el equilibrio como resultado.

ARBCOM debería aceptar un caso específico, centrado en Lightburst y los editores que interactúan con ellos, específicamente para examinar si a) la conducta fuera de la wiki de cualquiera de los miembros de ese grupo requiere sanciones dentro de la wiki para permitirnos reanudar el negocio normal, y b) la conducta dentro de la wiki de cualquiera de los miembros de ese grupo merece una sanción a la luz de lo que ocurrió fuera de la wiki. Sugiero que al menos un IBAN o dos están en orden. También quiero recordarles a todos que, si bien ser "simplemente" grosero con un colega fuera de la wiki puede no ser sancionable en forma aislada, mentir posteriormente sobre hacerlo dentro de la wiki es una clara violación de la CIVIL, al igual que poner en duda el comportamiento fuera de la wiki de otros editores.

Quiero señalar que no creo que los comportamientos en sí sean cosas que la comunidad no sea capaz de manejar: los problemas de conducta parecen ser sencillos (he revisado por encima parte del material de WPO). Pero mientras WPO albergue contenido que es doxing y/o acoso a editores (contenido no relacionado con este asunto) no queremos vincularlo en la wiki, por lo que se convierte en un problema de ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 ( discusión ) 16:28 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Insto a ARBCOM a no rechazar un caso simplemente porque LB [probablemente] sea BLOQUEADO. Los problemas conceptuales no se resolverán con el hilo de ANI. Si LB fue acosado fuera de la wiki, eso es algo con lo que todavía tienes que lidiar; si no lo fue, y todo este drama fue inventado por él sin motivo, es valioso documentarlo. Podría sugerir una evidencia truncada/taller, o incluso un manejo por moción, pero creo que necesitas proporcionar alguna resolución evaluando públicamente la evidencia privada. Vanamonde93 ( discusión ) 16:10, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Acalamari

Esto ya ha durado demasiado. Prohibición de Lightburst. Acalamari 03:30, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Hydrangeans

Envié de forma privada pruebas que no deberían estar enlazadas públicamente en Wikipedia. Animo a que se acepte esta solicitud. Si bien el nuevo hilo de ANI puede dar lugar a una acción comunitaria relacionada específicamente con Lightburst, el alcance de las acusaciones y las pruebas indica que, si bien Lightburst fue una especie de pararrayos para algunos eventos, los asuntos de interés para el caso no se limitan únicamente a un usuario.

El comportamiento fuera de la wiki puede y debe ser un factor en las sanciones dentro de la wiki porque la política de Wikipedia sobre ataques fuera de la wiki establece que los ataques personales realizados en otros lugares crean dudas sobre la buena fe de las acciones dentro de la wiki de un editor. Publicar ataques personales o difamaciones fuera de Wikipedia es perjudicial para la comunidad y para la relación de un editor con ella y que dichos ataques pueden ser considerados como factores agravantes por los administradores y son evidencia admisible en el proceso de resolución de disputas. El arbitraje es parte del proceso de resolución de disputas, y si bien el Comité no puede hacer algo como bloquear a un usuario en un sitio web diferente, el Comité puede sancionar a un usuario en Wikipedia con un comportamiento fuera de la wiki como un factor en la razón de esa sanción. La Carta del Movimiento nos obliga a garantizar un entorno seguro que priorice el bienestar, la seguridad y la privacidad de sus participantes . Cuando los wikipedistas son confusos o engañosos sobre la naturaleza de su comportamiento fuera de la wiki hacia otros wikipedistas (como hacer ataques personales o sondear), ese no es un entorno seguro y eso no es bienestar. Hortensias ( ella/ella | discusión | ediciones ) 05:48 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@TarnishedPath : Para mayor claridad, al momento de escribir esto, Lightburst aún no ha sido baneado por la comunidad, sino que ha sido baneado indefinidamente como una acción administrativa normal . Una prohibición por parte de la comunidad parece inmensamente probable. Sin embargo, múltiples declaraciones han demostrado motivos para un caso con un alcance mayor que el de Lightburst, por lo que un caso aún puede seguir adelante de manera plausible. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 15:51, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HJ Mitchell : Me gustaría que ArbCom evaluara la evidencia de comportamientos fuera de la wiki (como acoso, sondeos, ataques personales) que los espacios comunitarios como ANI no pueden evaluar ni abordar. Hay razones para que las sanciones dentro de la wiki reduzcan la forma en que este tipo de comportamientos fuera de la wiki afectan a la propia Wikipedia. Lightburst puede estar bloqueado, pero hay muchas otras cosas que están sucediendo y que la comunidad no puede ver ni abordar. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:49, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
Me hago eco de la recomendación de Levivich de que el Comité de Arbitraje se pronuncie sobre la solicitud de que Guerillero se recuse. Además de la solicitud formal de Levivich , más de una declaración en esta solicitud de caso (y de editores que parecen tener diferentes puntos de vista sobre el caso) también han sugerido la recusación. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 21:03, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Joe Roe

No soy un editor "anti-WPO". Me parece que algunas de las personas y las discusiones que se dan allí son un poco tristes, pero creo que tienen un propósito útil y me meto ahí de vez en cuando. Discord es mucho más preocupante, en mi opinión.

Pero el hilo de "artículos basura" se ha utilizado de forma bastante descarada para representar y/o solicitar apoyo a AfD desde hace algún tiempo, y eso tiene que parar. Envié evidencia de esto de forma privada a ArbCom en julio, pero aún no he recibido una respuesta adecuada. Esto es frustrante porque, en teoría, los administradores no involucrados podrían lidiar con este tipo de cosas, pero no podemos debido a una interpretación muy estricta de WP:OUTING que ArbCom se ha mostrado reacio a cuestionar . Entonces, si un caso es lo que se necesita para lidiar con esto, entonces el comité debería aceptarlo.

Si es así, agradecería instrucciones claras sobre qué tipo de evidencia debe enviarse en la wiki y qué debe enviarse de forma privada. ¿Podemos vincular los nombres de usuario de WP con los de WPO, nombrar hilos específicos, ese tipo de cosas? –  Joe  ( discusión ) 12:53, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En cuanto a la pregunta "¿qué puede hacer ArbCom en este caso?", me gustaría que identificaran a los editores activos que han perturbado Wikipedia a través de la Wikipediocracia y los prohibieran. –  Joe  ( discusión ) 11:55, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración deAlalch Y.

Según un nuevo hilo de ANI, Lightburst será baneado pronto, por lo que, si el alcance del caso debería ser "problema de Lightburst", parecería que la disputa en torno a su conducta no es, después de todo, una disputa que la comunidad no ha podido resolver.—13:00, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)

Declaración de FeydHuxtable

Se han visto varias preguntas sobre qué resultado útil podría surgir de un caso, y algunas señalan que ni siquiera los ARB pueden controlar los foros externos. Lo que los ARB podrían hacer es enviar recordatorios a los administradores para que no participen en conductas que empoderen a dichos sitios externos en sus ataques contra buenos editores. Por ejemplo, un recordatorio para cumplir con la política de WP:CBAN : las discusiones deben mantenerse abiertas durante al menos 24 horas antes de que se implemente cualquier sanción .

Esta mañana, Lightburst fue bloqueado solo 6 horas después de que se iniciara un hilo de ANI. El administrador que realizó el bloqueo normalmente me parece uno de nuestros colaboradores más sabios y, dada la naturaleza angustiante de los comentarios recientes destacados por Leaky, es posible que WP:IAR haya presentado un caso para la sanción temprana. Pero lo que el buen administrador puede no haber considerado es que las cuentas de WP:BADSITE pueden conspirar en sus chats ocultos, crear un hilo de ataque en ANI, puentearlo solo unas horas después de que se abre el hilo, crear una falsa impresión de "fuerte consenso" para un ban permanente, y hacer que un administrador haga de eso un hecho consumado al independizarse antes de que los miembros de la comunidad que no son del foro hayan tenido la oportunidad de opinar. (Han estado haciendo esto al menos de vez en cuando durante al menos 15 años, cuando pudieron derribar al ex líder de ARS Benji). Incluso ha habido casos bastante recientes de administradores que no solo emiten sanciones de hechos consumados , sino que incluso cierran discusiones de CBAN de editores bien establecidos sin esperar 24 horas.

Otro resultado útil sería un recordatorio para no penalizar a esos pocos editores lo suficientemente heroicos como para hablar en contra de los casos en que sitios externos están coordinando ataques contra editores aquí. Es despreciable pintar un objetivo para posibles ataques del mundo real contra un buen inclusivo como Lightburst. Gente como Herostratus con el coraje de hablar en defensa de los editores que están siendo atacados puede parecerles a algunos administradores la fuente de disrupción, ya que a menudo estarán en el lado equivocado de una situación contra muchas. Por lo tanto, un recordatorio puede ser útil; tal valentía es para elogiar, no para sancionar.

Dicho esto, también es un hecho que a varios de nuestros mejores editores les gusta frecuentar sitios como Wikipediocracy. En esos sitios pueden pasar cosas malas, pero eso es igualmente cierto aquí, donde una mala edición que no se cuestiona puede arruinar vidas. Para evitar el riesgo de culpabilidad por asociación, etc., ¿quizás Arbs podría llevar el caso principalmente en privado? FeydHuxtable ( discusión ) 18:46, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Para aclarar, no pretendo sugerir que Lightburst esté siendo objeto de sanciones: no sé cuántas de las cuentas que apoyan la permanencia son cuentas de WPO. Solo sugiero que los administradores que emiten sanciones basadas en un "fuerte consenso" solo unas horas después de que se publica un ANI, nos hace más vulnerables a las sanciones en el caso general, lo que aumenta el poder de los sitios externos para interferir en nuestros asuntos. FeydHuxtable ( discusión ) 19:09, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Dronebogus: gracias por aclararlo. Ya pensaba que Beebs tenía razón sobre el hilo de LB. Mi opinión es que WPO puede ser un equilibrio valioso, pero igualmente no deberíamos contribuir a que se vuelva demasiado poderoso. FeydHuxtable ( discusión ) 21:06, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de RoySmith

Solo para que conste, he impuesto oficialmente el CBAN de Lightburst . RoySmith (discusión) 23:41 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Moneytrees

Inicialmente, iba a sugerir que el comité abriera un caso con un alcance similar a un híbrido del caso de sondeo de WPTC y la disputa de SmallCat , donde la resolución de disputas que involucraba disputas entre editores de largo plazo se descarriló y se exacerbó por acusaciones de un grupo de editores que trabajaban juntos para sondear votos y atacar a otros. Se revisaría la conducta de las partes, las acusaciones posteriores fuera del sitio y cómo se impidió el proceso de resolución de disputas. Ahora que Lb está bloqueado y parece encaminarse hacia una prohibición de la comunidad, no estoy tan seguro... pero lo que sí sé es que una situación como esta volverá a suceder. Wpo es como el tabloide de Wikipedia: muchas acusaciones dudosas, estándares periodísticos que se violan y enemigos de largo plazo que se difaman, pero también se investiga un poco de suciedad real. A la gente no le gusta hablar de ello, pero ha sido un órgano político importante del sitio durante mucho tiempo y se usa para acortar ciertos procesos, y mucho de lo que dicen Vanamonde y Rhododendrites es cierto. ¿Qué puede evitar que otra situación (sobre lo que considero un patrón simple pero de larga data de ataques y comportamiento disruptivo por parte de un editor de larga data) se descarrile y se retrase por tonterías relacionadas con Wpo? En serio, creo que si Wpo no fuera tan molesto (si no pudieran dejar de meter la pata), esto se habría terminado en julio (no importa que los editores me hayan dicho públicamente y en privado que solo votaron en contra en la discusión de CBAN porque no les gustó el acoso de Wpo). Así que sí, creo que todavía hay un argumento real para abrir un caso.

Sin embargo, para responder a la declaración de Lb: no debería ser parte del caso, creo. No he publicado en Wpo en meses (desde que se reveló GeneralNotability), no he contribuido significativamente allí durante el último año y nunca he publicado nada que lo involucre. Lb está asumiendo mis inclinaciones y procesos de pensamiento; en el hilo de correo electrónico sobre JSS/WPO al que se refiere, en realidad pensé que se abriría un caso sobre la disputa. Como le dije a Star Mississippi, el momento en que salió del hilo de ANI con mi bloqueo SPI fue una coincidencia (muy frustrante); y como dije allí, realmente no me importaba lo que les sucediera a los afiliados de WPO involucrados. El hecho de que yo sea parte de este caso sería un nuevo litigio de lo que sucedió durante el verano con el comité del Defensor del Pueblo. Como Lb ha revelado en la wiki, solicitó al comité del Defensor del Pueblo que investigara mi bloqueo SPI de su calcetín. Me interrogaron y luego, en agosto, me exculparon explícitamente de cualquier irregularidad; Arbcom tiene acceso a mi correspondencia con ellos. Diré que lamento no haber sido tan minucioso como podría haber sido con mi comentario de ANI sobre Lb, y que debería haberme tomado más tiempo para comprender la situación y agregar más matices a la conversación... mi objetivo era mantener la verdad por encima de todo y usar las cosas específicas que sé para intentar hacer de WP un lugar mejor. Podría haber hecho un mejor trabajo en eso. Moneytrees🏝️ (discusión) 23:55 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Star Mississippi no había ninguna duda aquí, solo me refería a eso, así que no necesitaba repetirlo 👍 Moneytrees🏝️ (discusión) 01:36, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]


Declaración deQEDK

Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo con que la conducta de los usuarios fuera de la wiki se refleje en términos de acciones dentro de la wiki y se deba reservar estrictamente para cosas que generen fuertes divisiones, no para mala conducta o agresiones patentes. Creo que la prohibición de la comunidad es el resultado correcto de un proceso comunitario (no hay comentarios sobre la decisión en sí) y no hay mucho más que hacer aquí. Personalmente, creo que JSS/MT no se equivocó mucho y cualquier sesgo que se refleje es meramente una suposición más que una verdad; es muy posible tener a alguien en alta estima y también hacerlo responsable de sus acciones. -- qedk ( t 愛 c ) 10:26, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Folly Mox

Como mínimo, *los gestos de arriba* demuestran que se apoya la tesis del autor de la denuncia de que la WPO es un desencadenante de dramas. No estoy seguro de qué resultados se podrían esperar de manera realista si se abre un caso aquí. ¿ Se anima a los administradores a que no incluyan subprocesos de WPO en ANI? ¿Se recuerda a los editores que envíen pruebas de malversación fuera de la wiki mediante un correo electrónico privado? ¿ Se anima a los administradores de WPO a eliminar publicaciones que den información confidencial a los editores de Wikipedia? ¿RD7 se ha ampliado para incluir el drama de la WPO?

En este punto, estimo que la aceptación de un caso depende de la evidencia privada que menciona Eek en su declaración a continuación. Hubo consecuencias en la wiki para Beebs debido a su comportamiento fuera de la wiki, aunque probablemente solo se deba a su fez de Arb, por lo que hay un precedente para eso. Por otro lado, HJP cerró sin amonestar a Grabowski y Klein de que revelar la identidad de VM era innecesario y potencialmente peligroso (aunque uno de ellos tenía una cuenta aquí en User:Chapmansh), por lo que no hay precedentes para eso.

@ Carrite : ¿cuál es la política de la WPO con respecto a la divulgación de información personal ? Pude encontrar un texto en las Condiciones del servicio de 2014 que dice que todos los usuarios están de acuerdo... en no publicar ningún material... que invada la privacidad de una persona , pero las Condiciones del servicio de 2019 (actuales) no parecen mencionar nada parecido.

@ Yngvadottir : gracias: esos enlaces son informativos. @WPO: no hay ninguna presión implícita de mi parte; solo estaba haciendo una pregunta aclaratoria en respuesta a una declaración anterior. @Arbs: si se acepta, un caso aquí debería al menos proporcionar una válvula de escape dramática para que todos puedan sacar provecho de los lugares habituales, incluso si el resultado final es un desastre. ¡Buena suerte!

S. Marshall

Te sugiero que rechaces esto. La comunidad ya se ocupó de Lightburst. El comité no puede afectar a Wikipediocracy y no debería intentarlo.

La Wikipediocracia desearía ser un foro para criticar a Wikipedia, pero en realidad es un foro para criticar a los wikipedistas. Porque en Wikipedia se puede decir lo que se quiera sobre Wikipedia, pero si se quiere hablar de los editores, hay que hacer cosas aburridas como notificarles y presentar pruebas comprobables y no insultarlos, etc. Así que la gente a la que no le gustan esas tediosas restricciones va a la Wikipediocracia para hablar de los wikipedistas. Se quedan en Wikipedia para hablar de Wikipedia.

Ah, y tienen ese blog autocomplaciente, que se actualizó por última vez a finales del Jurásico.

Mi consejo sería que dejaran de recompensar con atención el comportamiento de búsqueda de atención de la Wikipediocracia. Sólo hay un par de docenas de ellos y su única influencia es que los wikipedistas desilusionados acuden allí en busca de apoyo mutuo y terapia de grupo, y algunos de ellos no han sido baneados.

El hecho es que la wikipediocracia puede ignorarse con total seguridad, y eso es lo que deberíamos estar haciendo. — S Marshall  T / C 22:58, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de DeCausa sobre la WPO

Me di cuenta de esto mientras me dirigía al otro caso de esta página en este momento. ¿No hay, en realidad, una pregunta bastante sencilla para Arbcom aquí: es WPO un problema intratable de WP:MEAT / WP:CANVASS que la comunidad no puede/no quiere resolver? Si la respuesta es sí, tome el caso. Si no, incluso porque todo está bien en el universo porque LB está CBANed, entonces no lo haga. Cualquier otra cosa no vale la pena. DeCausa ( discusión ) 23:46, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de LokiTheLiar

Sinceramente, creo que los problemas con Lightburst en particular son casi irrelevantes en este caso. Creo que ArbCom debería tomar el caso porque es literalmente imposible que la comunidad lo resuelva por sí sola, ya que depende en gran medida de evidencias externas a la wiki. Incluso el permiso para vincular directamente a WPO en lugar de hacer referencia a ellos de formas que se puedan buscar fácilmente tendría que ser otorgado por ArbCom.

También apoyo la petición de Levivich de que Guerillero se incline, debido a su participación relativamente frecuente allí. Loki ( discusión ) 00:11 28 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Valereee

Siento que no aceptar este caso es simplemente postergar el asunto. Guerillero, creo que suficientes personas han dicho que deberías recusarte como para que lo consideres seriamente. No se ve bien, especialmente cuando estás votando para rechazar el caso, lo que lamentablemente podría interpretarse como que estás votando en tu propio interés. Valereee ( discusión ) 13:02 28 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de {persona no parte}

Otros editores tienen la libertad de hacer comentarios pertinentes sobre esta solicitud, según sea necesario. Los comentarios aquí deben abordar por qué el Comité debería aceptar o no la solicitud de caso o proporcionar información adicional.

Conducta relacionada con la wikipediocracia: notas del secretario

Esta área se utiliza para notas de los secretarios (incluidas las recusaciones de los secretarios).

Conducta relacionada con la wikipediocracia: opinión de los árbitros al conocer este asunto

Tecla de votación: (Aceptar/rechazar/recusar)

  • Acepto . No estoy seguro del alcance exacto, pero creo que hay un caso en este caso. Publicaré más opiniones después de leer las respuestas y otras declaraciones de los editores. Z1720 ( discusión ) 00:01, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • En cuanto al reciente CBAN de Lightburst, no estoy seguro de que se pueda hacer más sin abrir un caso más amplio. Z1720 ( discusión ) 23:45 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Marina 69-71

Iniciado por Mztourist ( discusión ) a las 07:03, 26 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Fiestas propuestas

Confirmación de que todas las partes conocen la solicitud
Confirmación de que se han intentado otros pasos para la resolución de disputas

Declaración de Mztourist

Marine 69-71 ha: (1) ignorado el consenso al recrear el contenido eliminado: [5] después de que se eliminó en esta discusión de eliminación cerrada el 7 de octubre de 2023: Wikipedia:Miscelánea para eliminación/Usuario:Marine 69-71/sandbox , luego lo recreó en su página de discusión el 7 de octubre de 2023: [6] y luego acordó eliminarlo después de la discusión el 24 de octubre de 2023: Usuario discusión:Marine 69-71/Archivo 52#Nominación de eliminación rápida de Usuario discusión:Marine 69-71/Archivo 49 , tenga en cuenta que el contenido es potencialmente WP:COPYVIO ; (2) hizo un mal uso de las herramientas de administración para su propia conveniencia: [7], [8] y [9]; (3) ignoró generalmente las reglas básicas de WP: [10], [11], [12]; y (4) ignoró la política de WP:NOTWEBHOST al mantener páginas como Usuario:Marine 69-71/Autographs y Usuario:Marine_69-71/Workshop#The Marine and the Girl Next Door . Debido a este comportamiento, Marine 69-71 no es apto para ser administrador.

Respuesta a la declaración de Ritchie333
No estoy seguro de por qué sentiste la necesidad de incluir eso, así que responderé. En cada caso, estaba tratando de seguir a BRD y luego el administrador me puso en una posición "de dos lados". Mztourist ( discusión ) 11:14, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Usuario:Ritchie333 si tienes comentarios que hacer sobre este arbitraje debes hacerlos aquí, no en mi página de discusión: [13] Mztourist ( discusión ) 17:33 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Respuesta a la declaración de Hammersoft
Me enteré de la existencia de Marine 69-71 hace varios años. Muchas de las páginas que vi que había creado estaban mal referenciadas y algunas no pasaban la prueba. WP:N , otros usuarios claramente están de acuerdo con mi evaluación, ya que tiene una tasa de eliminación del 5,5%. El ejemplo que diste fue un claro caso de sondeo y no has demostrado que fuera una acusación injusta. Mztourist ( discusión ) 07:09 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Hammersoft dejó mensajes en las páginas de dos de sus amigos/simpatizantes haciendo clara referencia al anuncio de la AfD y ellos rápidamente (8 minutos y 4 horas después) se presentaron en la AFD para apoyarlo, un claro caso de campaña clandestina. Mztourist ( discusión ) 03:23 28 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Respuesta a la declaración del Marine 69-71
La declaración de Marine 69-71 "Creé mis talleres que no están abiertos al público, con la intención de escribir y trabajar en mis artículos. También he escrito cosas personales que no están abiertas al público, pero que me sirven como inspiración y motivación para escribir". demuestra una falta de comprensión de WP:UP . Si realmente quiere que las cosas "no estén abiertas al público", debería mantenerlas en su propia computadora y no en su página de usuario y subpáginas. Mztourist ( discusión ) 17:49 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración del Marine 69-71

Hola a todos. Me siento orgulloso y honrado de ser parte de este proyecto. He estado aquí durante muchos años y he escrito más de 800 artículos y he donado cientos de fotografías. Gracias a Wikipedia, mi trabajo aquí ha sido reconocido por el gobierno y he aparecido en un documental de PBS.

He creado mis talleres que no están abiertos al público, con la intención de escribir y trabajar en mis artículos. También he escrito cosas personales que no están abiertas al público, pero que me sirven de inspiración y motivación para escribir.

Creo sinceramente que no estoy molestando a nadie ni he infringido ninguna norma, ya que estos elementos llevan ahí muchos años. Gracias a todos por permitirme expresarme. Tony the Marine ( discusión ) 01:56 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de TarnishedPath (Marine 69-71)

Me parece bastante preocupante, dada la razón que se da para bloquear al editor: "Este usuario ha estado interfiriendo en un artículo en el que estoy trabajando". Tar nis hed Path talk 07:47, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Richie333 , no estaba hablando de ningún tema relacionado con el MFD actual. Lo que me llamó la atención de inmediato fue que en el caso del bloque en el que estaban involucrados los marines 69 y 71, ¿no deberían haber solicitado que otro administrador examinara el comportamiento de la IP? Tar nis hed Path talk 10:31, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Ritchie333

@TarnishedPath : La página cuya IP Marine69-71 bloqueó durante una semana en junio de 2023 era Usuario:Marine 69-71/sandbox (ahora eliminada). En ese contexto, "un artículo en el que estoy trabajando" no implica realmente propiedad , y generalmente permitimos a los editores más libertad para lo que pueden hacer en su propio espacio de usuario. Ritchie333 (discusión) (cont) 10:25, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Estoy de acuerdo con Dennis Brown: esto parece una tormenta en un vaso de agua. Si la gente puede presentar pruebas reales de que Marine impide activamente que la gente mejore Wikipedia, podemos analizarlas y tomar las medidas adecuadas. Y si está restaurando algo en contra del consenso, hay que decirle, en términos inequívocos, que deje de hacerlo.

También veo que Mztourist tiene un problema con los administradores. Para que quede claro, los bloqueé por guerra de ediciones en 2021. Ritchie333 (discusión) (cont) 10:55, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Dennis Brown

CaptainEek : Saltar a la conclusión de que esto significa automáticamente la eliminación de los sistemas parece presuntuoso. Si es parte de un patrón de abuso, entonces lo entiendo, pero si es un problema aislado, la eliminación de bits parece excesiva. Tal vez haya más en el caso, no lo sé, pero si este es el único problema y no hay una víctima singular (nadie fue excluido del proceso, etc.), entonces creo que este es el tipo de cosas que merecen una fuerte reprimenda, suponiendo que el Marine 69-71 sea cooperativo y tenga suficiente conocimiento para ver el problema. Lo que hizo fue estúpido y necesita entenderlo y reconocerlo, esto es cierto. Sin embargo, de la forma en que lo presentas, la eliminación de bits ya se ha decidido independientemente de las pruebas que se presenten. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Marine 69-71 , no creo que tu declaración anterior sea suficiente, ya que no aborda el problema en cuestión. Sinceramente espero que leas los comentarios aquí y te tomes el tiempo para comprender cuál es el problema real y luego lo abordes de manera clara. Lo que hiciste es un abuso de las herramientas. Aunque podría decirse que no hay una "víctima" singular, aún así estabas saliendo del proceso para beneficiarte únicamente a ti mismo, lo que (como mínimo) se refleja negativamente en tu condición de administrador. Da la impresión de que crees que estás por encima de los demás, lo cual no es así. Versión corta: usar las herramientas para recuperar unilateralmente algo para tu propio uso que la comunidad ha decidido que debe eliminarse no está permitido y muestra una falta de respeto a la comunidad en su conjunto.
Creo que Risker describió el problema con mayor claridad a continuación, aunque otros han dicho algo similar. No sabía que el procedimiento de revocación acababa de aprobarse (no estoy tan involucrado en cuestiones meta en este momento, por elección propia), pero ese parece ser el siguiente paso lógico. No sé cuál debería ser el resultado, pero este es el tipo de situación para la que parece estar diseñado el nuevo procedimiento de revocación. Debido a eso, Arbcom no debería aceptar el caso, ya que la comunidad tiene opciones que aún no se han explorado. Incluso si no hay suficiente apoyo para obligarlos a volver a la RFA, el proceso en sí debería ser suficiente para ventilar las quejas y determinar si Tony tiene suficiente información para mantener la confianza de la comunidad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:13, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cryptic Tal vez debería haber dicho "usó las herramientas para eludir el consenso de la comunidad", por lo que la mecánica es ligeramente diferente, pero el resultado es el mismo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:10, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración deAlalch Y.

Me he dado cuenta de la falta de familiaridad de Marine 69-71 con las prácticas y principios relevantes para ser administrador después de leer esta conversación de la página de discusión de 2022 entre él y Fram , que incluye la declaración El artículo "Lista de propiedades abandonadas en Hayden, Arizona" no debería estar en "Eliminación rápida" porque el contenido del artículo de Hayden, Arizona fue escrito originalmente por mí. (Para el contexto, consulte: Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminación/Lista de propiedades abandonadas en Hayden, Arizona ). Desde entonces, de vez en cuando, miraba lo que Marine 69-71 ha estado haciendo en términos administrativos y nunca he visto ninguna razón para que siga siendo administrador. Combinado con el último mal uso de las herramientas, creo que lo ideal sería desadministrar a Marine 69-71, y no debería verse como un gran problema.—15:49, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Wikipedia:La destitución de un administrador es un proceso en el que la comunidad decide si un administrador debe conservar su puesto. Si no hay una disputa por la conducta del administrador, eso generalmente significa que el administrador ha renunciado. Si el administrador no renuncia, y algunos editores quieren que lo haga, existe una disputa en algún eje dentro de la comunidad. A través de la destitución de un administrador, los editores intentan resolverla y llegan a una decisión. Los editores no podían hacer esto antes (sin contar a WP:BANDESYSOP ), pero con la nueva política, pueden hacerlo. La decisión puede ser destituir o mantener el status quo. Si el resultado es el status quo y la misma disputa sigue activa (como es de esperar, pero los defensores de la destitución pueden haber perdido fuerza y ​​haberse dado por vencidos), será el caso de que la comunidad no haya podido resolver la disputa por la conducta del administrador. ArbCom puede entonces actuar como un tomador de decisiones vinculante final. Por lo tanto, creo que la destitución de un administrador es un paso necesario ahora antes de que se pueda abrir un caso. Sólo en ese último paso es cuando se abre un caso para revisar las pruebas de manera estructurada y luego determinar qué remedios se pueden imponer, etc. —la manera de proceder de ArbCom—, porque ese enfoque, es decir, "romper el lomo" de la disputa pasando por alto la forma habitual de toma de decisiones de la comunidad, sólo entonces se justifica. Por eso, tiendo a creer que es uno de los pasos que se deben dar antes de que se pueda abrir un caso.—22:12, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)

Declaración de Swatjester

Según el hilo de ANI y la evidencia planteada aquí, parece que hay:

Creo que el comité está tomando la decisión correcta al esperar la respuesta de Tony; creo que si no la recibe, esto podría resolverse solo con el primero de estos puntos. No creo que los otros puntos alcancen el nivel de merecer la atención del comité, y mucho menos un caso real. ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:14, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Just Step Sideways

Ayer vi esto en AN y busqué en los registros de administración del sujeto. Lo que encontré allí no fue nada bueno. Parece que dejaron de hacer trabajo administrativo real hace bastante tiempo y ahora solo usan las herramientas para su propia conveniencia, violando WP:INVOLVED una o dos veces en el camino. Y sus recuerdos personales no relacionados con Wikipedia claramente parecen algo que debería estar en las redes sociales o en un sitio web personal, es claramente un caso de WP:NOTWEBHOST . Dicho esto, no estoy del todo seguro de que esto represente el tipo de problema continuo e insoluble con un administrador que amerite un caso completo. Simplemente aléjese de este mundo... hoy 17:44, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Es una coincidencia un tanto extraña que esto haya ocurrido exactamente en el mismo momento en que finalmente se adoptó el procedimiento de destitución. Este puede ser un caso de prueba adecuado para eso. Golpeado debido al absoluto desastre que está sucediendo allí. Simplemente apártate de este mundo... hoy 21:10, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es un poco alarmante que un administrador experimentado aparentemente crea que puede crear páginas en este proyecto que no están abiertas al público . Simplemente aléjese de este mundo... hoy 18:29, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Y también está publicando avisos como éste en su colección de páginas personales de usuarios que no tienen relación con este proyecto:

  ¡Advertencia!  
¡Será mejor que no te metas con mi taller!
No se trata de que alguien haya perdido el contacto con las normas actuales, ya que no creo que haya habido nunca un momento en el que este tipo de cosas fueran normales. Simplemente aléjate de este mundo... hoy 18:35, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que, dado lo que está sucediendo allí, los árbitros deberían considerar esto como una solicitud normal por sus propios méritos y no considerar que la revocación de un mandato administrativo sea un proceso que funcione correctamente en este momento. Simplemente, aléjense de este mundo... hoy 19:15, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Deepfriedokra

Creo que lo mejor sería intentar salir del paso con una simple advertencia si @ Marine 69-71 : demuestra que comprende lo que hizo mal y asume un compromiso creíble de no crear más problemas en el futuro. La falta de uso constructivo de las herramientas no es en sí misma una razón para abandonar el sistema, aunque lo alentaría a que aumente su actividad de manera constructiva, especialmente en áreas relacionadas con la administración. La falta de experiencia reciente se puede superar mediante una observación y un aprendizaje cautelosos y la participación con una apertura a la crítica constructiva. -- -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 19:07 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Intenté invitarlo a participar en esta solicitud de caso, pero no vi un enlace de correo electrónico. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 19:20, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ya sea aquí o en una petición de destitución, se requiere una respuesta. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 20:48 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aunque el vínculo de Black Kite con el pasado es interesante, necesitamos indicaciones más recientes y más continuas de que no es adecuado retirar las herramientas. Espero con interés la respuesta de Marine. Todavía tengo la esperanza de que una advertencia y una promesa de hacerlo mejor sean suficientes. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 21:00 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Recomiendo rechazar la propuesta. No veo evidencia de un mal uso de la herramienta que requiera una acción por parte de arbcom. El nuevo proceso de petición de destitución ( Wikipedia:Destitución de administradores ) parece ser el camino a seguir, si es que es necesario hacerlo. Al mismo tiempo, insto a @ Marine 69-71 a que aumente su actividad administrativa de forma lenta y cuidadosa. Gracias. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 03:59, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Debe aumentar el uso de sus herramientas de una manera que beneficie a Wikipedia. Debe prestar atención al consejo que le di en su charla. Debe abordar de manera significativa las preocupaciones de la comunidad. Aquí o en la revocatoria del administrador. No puedo oponerme a que ArbCom tome esto sin respuestas significativas. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 20:29, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aoidh resume muy bien el motivo por el que lamento haber retirado mi recomendación de rechazar el caso. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 07:52 28 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo la esperanza de que el Comité pueda ver la manera de presentar una moción para advertir sobre las preocupaciones pasadas y alentar a los usuarios a enmendar sus comportamientos. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 14:37 29 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No creo que se justifique la desinstalación del sistema. Y la idea de pasar de aquí a la petición de revocación, lo que le daría al solicitante una segunda oportunidad, me molesta. -- Deepfriedokra ( discusión ) 04:12 31 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración por escrito extraordinario

Creo que esto se debe menos a las violaciones de políticas específicas (que son reales pero tal vez no se puedan desinstalar, al menos si responde el Marine 69-71) y más a una pérdida generalizada de confianza en su capacidad para usar las herramientas de manera efectiva. Históricamente, ArbCom ha tenido que lidiar con esos casos porque nadie más puede hacerlo, pero Wikipedia:La revocación de un administrador es una política desde hace unas horas (ver este cierre ), y ese es un proceso perfectamente adecuado para probar si un administrador ha " perdido la confianza de la comunidad ". Algo para pensar. Extraordinary Writ ( discusión ) 19:20, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

La respuesta de Marine 69-71 no aborda las preocupaciones planteadas aquí, que implican mucho más que el alojamiento web. Arbs, si cree que la destitución es un baño de sangre , entonces debería simplemente deshabilitar el sistema mediante una moción. Cualquier cosa menos que eso conducirá a una petición, y no estoy seguro de que eso sea lo mejor para nadie en este momento. Extraordinary Writ ( discusión ) 02:38, 31 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para ser claro, CaptainEek , la razón principal por la que creo que deberías deshacerte de la función de administrador es que es lo correcto: hay bloques defectuosos, protecciones defectuosas (esto; restaurar la "versión correcta" y luego proteger por completo; muchas otras protecciones INVOLUCRADA y/o simplemente incorrectas), subprocesos ANI antiguos y nuevos, y mucho más. Los beneficios pragmáticos son solo una ventaja. Extraordinary Writ ( discusión ) 04:03 31 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Black Kite

Marine69-71 no ha hecho nada útil con el conjunto de herramientas durante muchos años; parece que solo lo usan cuando es útil para su propia edición, y las travesuras recientes no son la primera vez que abusan de las herramientas. Me sorprendió que no las perdieran después de esta tontería. Teniendo en cuenta eso, un simple dessysop por movimiento sería el camino más simple a seguir aquí. Esto no necesita un caso completo. Black Kite (discusión) 19:29 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Hammersoft

Dada la política actual Wikipedia:Retirada de administradores , esto debería ser manejado allí en lugar de aquí en ArbCom, quienes tienen un historial de desinstalar de forma precipitada. Es obvio que ya hay intención de desinstalar aquí. Además, dadas las interacciones previas de Mztourist con Marine 69-71, incluyendo enviar 11 de sus artículos para su eliminación, votar la eliminación de casi todo lo demás, acusarlos injustamente de hacer campaña [14], y aquí quejarse de un vándalo en su propio espacio de usuario que fue bloqueado, la actualización de esto a ArbCom parece problemática en el mejor de los casos . Un bumerán podría estar en orden . Black Kite, traer a colación algo de hace más de 13 años no es de mucha ayuda excepto para resaltar que si se abre un caso será un caso sin restricciones, de alcance abierto y libre contra Marine 69-71. No hay esperanza para Marine 69-71 aquí; será imposible para él defenderse. -- Hammersoft ( discusión ) 20:07 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Mztourist : Tu "prueba" de que el Marine 69-71 hizo campaña electoral fue pedirle de manera neutral a dos personas que vinieran a su página de discusión [15][16]. No estaba pidiendo a la gente que participara en una AfD y votara de una manera particular, ni ningún otro mecanismo de construcción de consenso. Estaba pidiendo que la gente viniera a su página de discusión. Si crees que fueron elegidos a dedo como una forma subrepticia (no importa WP:AGF ) para que votaran en Wikipedia:Artículos para borrar/Jorge Otero Barreto , todavía no es campaña electoral. Una vez más, les pidió de manera neutral que se unieran a la conversación en su página de discusión, e incluso si les pidió que se unieran a la conversación sobre la AfD, se lo pidió de manera neutral. Esto simplemente no es campaña electoral. -- Hammersoft ( discusión ) 22:59, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de RoySmith

Creo que esto debería rechazarse. La regla general siempre ha sido que ArbCom es el tribunal de última instancia en asuntos que la comunidad no puede tratar. Eso siempre ha sido efectivamente, "Todos los asuntos relacionados con los administradores porque la comunidad no tiene el poder de sancionar a los administradores". Pero eso ya no es cierto. Dejó de ser cierto el año pasado cuando se cambió WP:CBAN para incluir la eliminación del bit de sysop, y se volvió drásticamente menos cierto hoy con la promulgación de WP:RECALL , como varias personas han mencionado anteriormente. Todavía hay un lugar para que ArbCom se involucre en los dessysoppings. Podría haber situaciones que no se puedan manejar en público debido a evidencia fuera de la wiki. Podría haber situaciones en las que sea necesaria una acción de emergencia, como un administrador que se vuelve rebelde o una cuenta comprometida. Ninguna de esas parece aplicarse aquí. RoySmith (discusión) 20:28, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de isaacl

Un comentario general sobre el proceso de destitución de administradores: se promulgó como otro proceso para eliminar privilegios administrativos. Tal como está formulado actualmente, no sustituye a la apertura de un caso por parte del comité de arbitraje para revisar las pruebas de manera estructurada y luego determinar el mejor curso de acción, incluidos los remedios que se podrían imponer a los editores (incluidos los administradores) involucrados. (Durante las discusiones de este año, no se ha hablado de que el proceso de destitución sustituya a los procedimientos de arbitraje para la eliminación de permisos [avanzados] ). Por lo tanto, no estoy de acuerdo con considerarlo como uno de los pasos que se deben tomar antes de que se pueda abrir un caso. Puede que sean apropiados otros remedios además de la eliminación de privilegios administrativos, y se deberían considerar sin exigir que la comunidad haya pasado por el proceso de destitución.

En relación con este caso específico: puede ser una situación en la que la consideración principal sea determinar el nivel de confianza de la comunidad en el administrador, y el proceso de destitución permitiría una mayor participación de la comunidad. Me preocupa un poco que el comité de arbitraje inicie esencialmente una petición de destitución, pero imagino que en el futuro, a medida que el proceso de destitución se haga más conocido, la comunidad lo iniciará fácilmente por su cuenta. isaacl ( discusión ) 21:06, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Tamzin

Mi impresión de User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52 § Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party , que en realidad se refería a dos plantillas ( {{ First Corsican families in Puerto Rico }} fue eliminado mientras la discusión estaba en curso) fue que Tony es un colaborador de larga data que tiene buenas intenciones, pero que no está al día con las mejores prácticas actuales en administración y no ha mostrado mucho interés en ponerse al día. Realmente no tengo una opinión firme sobre si debería ser administrador actualmente, pero lo alentaría a que piense si quiere serlo. Habiendo entregado mis herramientas yo mismo, puedo decir que es una especie de alivio que ahora, si cometo un error, sea solo un error normal, no un problema de WP:ADMINACCT / WP:ADMINCOND que se pueda llevar a AN/ANI/ArbCom. No tengo que redactar cuidadosamente cada declaración para evitar que me lleve a la sorpresa de que un administrador sea tan despectivo o grosero o lo que sea. Y la gente parece escucharme más en las disputas sobre contenido. Tony parece disfrutar de ser editor de contenido. Puede que descubra que, de hecho, es más fácil serlo sin ser administrador. -- Tamzin [ se necesita cetáceo ] ( they|xe ) 23:18, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Vanamonde (Marine 69-71)

No me preocupan demasiado los problemas de WEBHOST en sí mismos, y no me entusiasma la cantidad de tiempo que la comunidad dedica a esto. Me preocupan más estas ediciones, que, junto con las ediciones del espacio de usuario, sugieren que es posible que Marine 69-71 no esté completamente al día con nuestras normas sobre autopromoción y edición de COI. Dicho esto, se trata de un editor con 20 años de experiencia, que ha contribuido con un volumen considerable de contenido a Wikipedia: tampoco es muy activo, y es posible que los eventos aquí se hayan movido mucho más rápido de lo que esperaba. Creo que se les debería dar respetuosamente la oportunidad de corregir el rumbo antes de que se pongan sanciones sobre la mesa. Vanamonde93 ( discusión ) 23:36, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Risker (Marine 69-71)

En respuesta a la declaración de Vanamonde93 anterior, señalaré que cualquier posible conflicto de intereses entre Marine 69-71 y el artículo de Tony Santiago se divulga en la página de discusión del artículo, en un cuadro grande en la parte superior de la página que no se archiva. Revisé todas las ediciones; la gran mayoría de ellas son mantenimiento rutinario del artículo (agregar categorías reflejadas en el texto, arreglar enlaces externos en referencias, corregir un error de contenido que de ninguna manera se refleja en el tema del artículo) y un par de adiciones de contenido menores. Una adición fue cuestionada por conflicto de intereses en la fecha en que se agregó y no se restableció, la otra se eliminó por "irrelevante".

Y en respuesta a CaptainEek a continuación, la política de retiro de administradores está destinada en gran medida a reemplazar a los desysops de Nivel II y ponerlos en manos de la comunidad. Arbcom es conocido justificadamente por retirar todos los casos de desysops de Nivel II, salvo unos pocos, que son específicos de la conducta de los administradores que acepta. Arbcom ahora es perfectamente libre de remitir cualquier asunto de desysop de Nivel II directamente al proceso de la comunidad y no perder el tiempo manejando estos casos. Si la comunidad no aprovecha esa oportunidad o decide no retirar el kit de herramientas de alguien después de seguir el proceso de retiro de administradores, eso es responsabilidad de la comunidad. Arbcom sigue siendo necesario para los desysops de Nivel I, obviamente.

Lo que veo aquí es principalmente una solicitud del tipo "tal vez este administrador no esté al tanto del proceso". Es un caso ideal para hacer una referencia a la comunidad. Arbcom debería hacerlo.

Declaración de JPxG (Marine 69-71)

Lo dije en el hilo AN/I y lo diré aquí también:

Creo que recrear y proteger completamente la página es claramente injustificado y un mal uso directo de las herramientas; no sé qué respuesta específica se justifica en este caso, pero no es bueno haberlo hecho.
Si se trata de un contratiempo aislado, preferiría que hiciera un esfuerzo para mantenerse al día con las normas modernas. Si forma parte de un patrón recurrente y no de un contratiempo aislado y extraño, le recomendaría que renunciara a su puesto o que se preparara para que el próximo (o quizás este) fuera a arbitraje y terminara con un descifrado.

Cuando la gente hizo referencia a casos anteriores en los que Tony tomó medidas administrativas que no estaban en línea con las normas modernas, en cada caso que vi, lo que sucedió fue que él fue bastante decente y educado cuando alguien lo mencionó, y los alentó a revertirlo si pensaban que era una mala decisión. Realmente no parecía el tipo de situación administrativa heredada deshonesta que requiriera un desadministrador. Las cosas que hizo no fueron de alto impacto ni de un criterio escandalosamente malo, y no me parece que haya sucedido nada malo como resultado de eso.

Alguien dijo que el archivador ha estado siguiendo a Tony para hacerle pasar un mal momento.nota del secretario: en referencia a la declaración de Hammersoft; la discusión se trasladó a la página de discusión ] -- no estoy en condiciones de verificar esto de manera agresiva en este momento -- pero sería muy poco convincente si fuera cierto. jp × g 🗯️ 02:31, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Bishonen

[ Las respuestas a JPxG se movieron a la página de discusión. ]

@ CaptainEek : Bueno, ahora has visto cómo funciona la revocación de mandato , así que puedes decidir si la aplazas en este caso, ¿no? Ten en cuenta que el desastre que es la revocación de mandato de Graham87 aparentemente debe durar 30 días (lo que hace que los 7 días de RFA sobre los que ha habido tantas quejas parezcan relativamente humanos), ya que hasta ahora se han revertido los intentos de cerrarla. Bishonen | habla 18:22, 29 de octubre de 2024 (UTC). [ responder ]

Declaración de Cryptic

Una objeción a la declaración de Dennis Brown , enfatizada en verde: Marine 69-71 no ha -que yo sepa- técnicamente recuperado nada. Creó la copia en User talk:Marine 69-71/archive 52 sial aproximadamente medio día después de que Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox comenzara (accionar la etiqueta G4 que se le colocó después fue como me involucré por primera vez), la agregó al User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49 ya existente aproximadamente 2 horas después de que el mfd concluyó, y luego la recreó en parte en User:Marine 69-71/Workshop3 aproximadamente un año después (hace aproximadamente 2 semanas). Tal vez usó viewdeleted, tal vez pegó una copia sin conexión, no hay forma de saberlo; pero para alguien con viewdeleted que vuelve a publicar contenido eliminado, la única forma razonable de lidiar con eso es asumir que usó esa herramienta para hacerlo. — Cryptic 09:51, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración deQEDK(Marina 69-71)

Nivel limitado de error que no llega al nivel de un desysop, en gran medida de acuerdo con lo que Cabayi ha dicho a continuación. -- qedk ( t 愛 c ) 10:30, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Alanscottwalker

Sea cual sea el problema del servidor web, soy de la opinión de que la comunidad es más indulgente o no existe un consenso real sobre el material "biográfico" del propio editor (excepto lo que la comunidad considera muy ofensivo o muy perturbador, que debe eliminarse). Testigo de ello, entre otras cosas, es el uso extensivo de casillas de usuario. Alanscottwalker ( discusión ) 13:33 27 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de DeCausa

Este parece ser un caso de ignorar sistemáticamente WP:INVOLVED . TarnishedPath ya ha destacado que su único bloqueo desde 2010 estaba involucrado. Si nos fijamos en sus protecciones, aparte de las de su sandbox/"talleres", son casi todas de artículos y plantillas que ha creado (y principalmente de los que es autor) con un par de excepciones (en los últimos 10 años solo encontré Joachim Phoenix y 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) que ha protegido pero no ha creado. Pero es un editor frecuente de ambos y editor principal de este último). Casi siempre protege algo que ha escrito. En 2023, Tamzin le preguntó (y mencionó que estaba involucrado) la excesiva protección de edición solo para administradores en respuesta a una única edición de IP a una plantilla que él creó y de la que es autor ( Template:Puerto Rican Nationalist Party ).[17] A veces es más flagrante que solo WP:OWN en general . La fuente a la que se refería en este resumen de protección de 2017 la había añadido ese mismo día[18] después de que otro usuario hubiera identificado la fuente original que había añadido Marine 69-71, no superó la verificación. No protege (ni bloquea) a menudo, por lo que los casos son pocos y espaciados. Pero si es problemático cada vez que lo hace, ¿por qué dejarle las herramientas?

@ Deepfriedokra : en esta enmienda a tu comentario anterior, sugieres que esto debería rechazarse, pero mantienes el consejo de que debería aumentar su actividad administrativa de forma lenta y cuidadosa . Pero, como dije anteriormente, hasta donde puedo ver, toda su actividad administrativa, al excluir acciones menores para "su propia conveniencia", ha infringido sistemáticamente WP:INVOLVED . Me alegra que me corrijan si me equivoco. Pero si no es así, ¿por qué querríamos que aumentara su actividad administrativa? ¿Me he equivocado? DeCausa ( discusión ) 20:04, 27 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Valereee

No me gustaría ver un desistimiento, pero Marine 69-71 , has hecho un mal uso de las herramientas y eso debe terminar. Tal vez sea más fácil simplemente dejar de lado voluntariamente el trapeador que no estás usando realmente y aceptar el agradecimiento del proyecto por tu servicio.

Declaración de Fram

No utilizan sus herramientas para el beneficio de enwiki, sino solo para su propio beneficio. También utilizan su estado de administrador como herramienta, véase Discusión:Lista de propiedades abandonadas en Hayden, Arizona . Ah, y quizás los empleados puedan recordarle a Ritchie333 que un comentario como "También veo que Mztourist tiene un problema con los administradores". como ataque al solicitante del caso es inaceptable por sí solo, y más aún cuando está vinculado a esta hamburguesa sin contenido. El que esta solicitud de caso sea aceptable o no no tiene nada que ver con un comentario que Mztourist le hizo a BBB23 en julio, que ni siquiera indica lo que Ritchie quiere que creamos. Fram ( discusión ) 12:38, 28 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de {persona no parte}

Otros editores tienen la libertad de hacer comentarios pertinentes sobre esta solicitud, según sea necesario. Los comentarios aquí deben abordar por qué el Comité debería aceptar o no la solicitud de caso o proporcionar información adicional.

Marine 69-71: Notas del secretario

Esta área se utiliza para notas de los secretarios (incluidas las recusaciones de los secretarios).

Marine 69-71: Opinión de los árbitros al conocer este asunto

Tecla de votación: (Aceptar/rechazar/recusar)


Utilice esta sección para solicitar aclaración o enmienda de un caso o decisión cerrada del Comité de Arbitraje.

Para presentar una solicitud de aclaración o enmienda: (¡debes utilizar este formato!)

  1. Elija una de las siguientes opciones y abra la página en una nueva pestaña o ventana:
    • Haga clic aquí para presentar una solicitud de aclaración de una decisión o procedimiento arbitral.
    • Haga clic aquí para presentar una solicitud de enmienda de una decisión o procedimiento de arbitraje (incluida una acción de ejecución de arbitraje emitida por un administrador, como una restricción de temas contenciosos ).
  2. Guarda tu solicitud y comprueba que se ve como crees que debería y que dice lo que pretendías.
  3. Si su solicitud afectará o involucrará a otros usuarios (incluido cualquier usuario que haya nombrado como parte), debe notificar a estos editores sobre su envío; puede usar para hacer esto.{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
  4. Agregue las diferencias de las notificaciones de la página de discusión debajo del encabezado correspondiente de la solicitud.

Esto no es un debate. No envíe su solicitud hasta que esté lista para su consideración; este no es un espacio para borradores y las adiciones incrementales a una propuesta pueden ser perjudiciales.

Los árbitros o secretarios pueden eliminar o refactorizar sumariamente la discusión sin comentarios.

Las solicitudes de usuarios bloqueados o baneados deberán realizarse por correo electrónico directamente al Comité de Arbitraje .

Sólo los árbitros y secretarios pueden eliminar solicitudes de esta página. No elimine una solicitud ni ninguna declaración o comentario a menos que esté en alguno de estos grupos. No debe haber discusiones en cadena, por lo que le rogamos que comente únicamente en su propia sección. Las solicitudes de aclaración y enmienda archivadas se registran en Wikipedia:Arbitraje/Índice/Solicitudes de aclaración y enmienda . Se pueden utilizar numerosos atajos heredados y actuales para llegar más rápidamente a esta página:

Atajos :

Solicitud de modificación: artículos sobre Palestina e Israel (remisión AE)

Iniciado por Halcón de cola roja a las 17:38, 17 agosto 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Caso o decisión afectada
Caso de arbitraje según  los artículos 4 entre Palestina e Israel ( t ) ( ev  /  t ) ( w  /  t ) ( pd  /  t ) e hilo AE relacionado .
Cláusulas cuya modificación se solicita
  1. De conformidad con WP:CTOP#Referencias del tablón de anuncios de Ejecución de Arbitraje al Comité en pleno , un hilo reciente de Ejecución de Arbitraje se cerró con instrucciones de remitir la disputa al comité de arbitraje en pleno para una decisión final.
Listas de todos los usuarios involucrados o directamente afectados y confirmación de que todos están al tanto de la solicitud
Participantes de AE ​​involucrados
Otros editores cuyo comportamiento fue mencionado directamente en el hilo de AE
Administradores de referencia
Confirmación de que todas las partes conocen la solicitud
Información sobre la solicitud de modificación
  • A lo largo del debate entre los administradores de AE, se identificaron varias fuentes de interrupción:
  1. Edición en cámara lenta a largo plazo de la guerra entre varios individuos en el área temática del conflicto árabe-israelí.
  2. Edición de equipo de etiqueta a largo plazo que enfrenta a varios grupos de personas con el área temática del conflicto árabe-israelí.
  3. La naturaleza generalizada de la guerra de ediciones, la mentalidad de campo de batalla y la presión del punto de vista dentro del área temática del conflicto árabe-israelí.
  4. La ineficacia de las advertencias previas dentro del área temática para detener la perturbación.
  5. La incapacidad de las herramientas disponibles en AE para gestionar adecuadamente las disrupciones que involucran a un gran número de partes durante largos períodos de tiempo.
Durante el debate, los administradores hicieron varias sugerencias, entre ellas la emisión de advertencias a varias personas, la imposición de restricciones 0RR a determinadas personas o restricciones 0RR a un gran número de personas junto con determinados IBAN, TBAN, restricciones individuales contra la agresión y restricciones temáticas sobre la extensión de las publicaciones que se realizan en los debates dentro de esta área temática. Sin embargo, debido a que el debate se convirtió en un conjunto de quejas complejas y de múltiples partes sobre el comportamiento de varios editores durante largos períodos de tiempo, se llegó a un consenso entre los administradores para remitir la disputa más amplia al comité de arbitraje.
— Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 17:38 17 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración del Halcón de cola roja (remisión AE)

información Nota: La plantilla de enmienda de arbitraje limita la cantidad de personas que puedo agregar inicialmente, por lo que en breve agregaré al resto de los participantes administradores y no administradores a la lista anterior en su propia sección.

Además, como no puedo encontrar ejemplos anteriores de remisiones consultando el archivo, he intentado hacer lo mejor que he podido en este caso, teniendo en cuenta que se trata de una remisión y no de una solicitud o apelación de enmienda estándar. Los árbitros no deben dudar en informarme si he formateado esto de una manera inesperada.

— Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 17:38 17 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Levivich : Como debería ser más obvio ahora, son todos los que contribuyeron a la discusión sobre AE. — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 17:48, 17 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Levivich: Actualmente hay una discusión en WT:Arbitration/Requests#Template para referencias de AE ​​sobre ese tema. Para completar, incluí a todos en esta. En el futuro, puede que haya alguna norma/convención, pero pensé que era mejor incorporar a todos en lugar de dejar fuera a alguien relevante. — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 18:03, 17 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reconozco que omití a varias personas cuyo comportamiento se mencionó directamente, y solucionaré ese problema ahora. — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 18:07, 17 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Zero0000 : Por favor, lee mi comentario anterior y mi intercambio con Levivich para obtener una explicación de por qué estás incluido en la categoría de "Participantes de AE ​​involucrados". — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 11:20, 20 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ L235 : Gracias por tu comentario. Creo que una estructura completa o similar a la de un caso sería lo mejor, ya que es el tipo de cosas que permitirían un examen claro de las complejas disputas entre múltiples partes que AE no es capaz de manejar bien. En mi opinión, no creo que la disposición temática de "sé breve en las discusiones" sea suficiente, ya que no va a remediar las guerras de edición a largo plazo ni los problemas de civilidad que han alejado a los editores de buena fe del área temática.
En caso de que se abra un caso completo, estoy de acuerdo en que lo más apropiado es que solo se considere como partes a las personas cuyo comportamiento se está investigando. Pero, antes de que se finalice esa lista, tal vez queramos tener algún espacio para que la comunidad identifique ese tipo de comportamiento, ¿quizás la sección para declaraciones en este hilo? — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 19:01, 17 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que podría ser útil incorporar alguna sanción contra los ataques contundente a las sanciones discrecionales que los administradores pueden aplicar, pero, de ser así, creo que debería parecerse a una que la comunidad haya aprobado anteriormente en un área de DS. Una de esas sanciones es la que se impuso a NewImpartial, de no más de dos comentarios por discusión por día, excepto respuestas (de longitud razonable) a preguntas o aclaraciones muy breves de sus propios comentarios .
Dudaría en aplicar un límite de 500 palabras en cualquier discusión de menos de 5000 palabras, y un límite de 1000 palabras o el 10% del límite de discusión, lo que sea menor, en discusiones de más de 5000 palabras sobre un tema en particular de manera general; siento que este tipo de cosas servirían como una trampa para los recién llegados de buena fe que son verbosos, y no necesitamos WP:BITE a los editores de buena fe que están ingresando al tema más de lo que ya ocurre. Dicho esto, hacerlo disponible como una sanción discrecional que podría ser aplicada por un administrador no causaría el mismo problema con más o menos mordeduras automáticas de editores de buena fe nuevos en el área, y podría ser razonable. — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 00:46, 20 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He leído el análisis de BilledMammal ( discusión  · contribs ) sobre la paliza. Me gustaría señalar que los editores de WP:ARBBLUDGEON deberían evitar repetir el mismo punto o hacer tantos comentarios que dominen la discusión como señal de dos cosas: repetirse demasiado en las respuestas a los demás y simplemente dominar por puro volumen . Los criterios utilizados para la búsqueda en la base de datos pueden verse como un proxy (defectuoso, pero útil) para lo último. El primero requiere un análisis contextual para determinar si alguien simplemente publica el mismo punto un millón de veces en respuesta a diferentes personas; mostrar diferencias en la misma discusión donde alguien repite el mismo punto una y otra (y otra vez) en una multitud de comentarios proporcionaría una mejor evidencia hacia ese punto que el análisis actual. — Halcón de cola roja (nido) 23:03, 27 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ] 
@ Z1720 : Con respecto a Si el administrador de cierre determina que el consenso es una remisión de ARCA o una solicitud de caso, es responsabilidad del administrador de cierre publicar la solicitud en el lugar apropiado , mi lectura de Wikipedia:Temas contenciosos#Remisiones del tablón de anuncios de Ejecución de Arbitraje a la parte pertinente del Comité completo (es decir, Un consenso de administradores en el tablón de anuncios de ejecución de arbitraje puede remitir una solicitud de ejecución de arbitraje al Comité de Arbitraje para una decisión final a través de una solicitud de enmienda ; énfasis mío) es que tuve que enviarlo aquí en lugar de como una solicitud de caso. Si esto va a cambiar en el futuro, probablemente se deberían modificar las instrucciones para aclarar esto. — Halcón de cola roja (nido) 23:44, 28 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ] 
Creo que una implementación amplia de WP:BRD en todo el tema eliminará las guerras de edición en equipo que se producen actualmente para evitar WP:1RR . Sin embargo, lo que creará es peor: permitiría que grupos de personas incluso más pequeños generen aún más fricción para realizar cambios sustanciales en cualquier parte del área. Una implementación amplia de WP:BRD en todo el área agotaría el tiempo de los editores innecesariamente y resultaría inviable (particularmente para artículos sobre eventos actuales de rápido desarrollo donde WP:1RR probablemente ya sea demasiado engorroso). — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 23:55, 24 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Notaré que se ha cerrado un hilo con la conclusión de que estoy involucrado en el contexto de la guerra entre Israel y Hamás (2023-presente) debido a ediciones de contenido en esa área. De ahora en adelante, me abstendré de tomar acciones administrativas en el contexto de esa guerra, excepto en casos sencillos (por ejemplo, vandalismo). — Halcón de cola roja  (nido) 17:50, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Levivich

Al igual que otros, aprecio el intento de llevar esto a una conclusión con algunas mociones, pero no estoy de acuerdo con todas las sugerencias de SFR:

  1. Apelaciones solo a arbcom: no veo ninguna evidencia de que las apelaciones sean una fuente significativa de disrupción en esta área temática. ¿Dónde están los enlaces a 5-10 apelaciones disruptivas recientes? Por lo tanto, no veo ninguna razón para cambiar nada sobre las apelaciones.
  2. Límites de palabras: el apaleo no se puede determinar por el recuento de palabras o el recuento de comentarios, son indicadores pero no determinantes; cualquier determinación requiere un análisis caso por caso. Además, es una falacia pensar que las discusiones largas son siempre un problema. No podemos decidir si llamarlo " genocidio de Gaza " en una discusión breve. No podemos analizar el número de RSes en Template:Opiniones de expertos en el debate sobre el genocidio de Gaza en menos de 500 palabras por persona. Limitar las discusiones de la página de discusión a 500 palabras sería muy contraproducente para construir una enciclopedia, en cualquier área temática, porque impediría que la gente discuta cualquier cosa en profundidad. Muchos de nosotros ni siquiera podemos comentar este ARCA de un mes de duración en menos de 500 palabras; ¿cómo decidiríamos alguna vez "genocidio de Gaza" en menos de 500 palabras cada uno?
  3. Exclusión de los participantes "involucrados" - Los "editores designados como "involucrados" en el área de conflicto" serían todos los que editan en ARBPIA. No estoy seguro de la lógica detrás de poner restricciones a todos los que editan ARBPIA. Ciertamente no hay ninguna evidencia de que todos los que editan ARBPIA estén editando de manera disruptiva o de que excluir sus voces beneficiaría de alguna manera al área temática. Además, la experiencia en la edición de un área temática no es algo malo. Me resulta difícil ver la lógica de reemplazar a editores experimentados por editores inexpertos y esperar que eso conduzca a una mejora.
  4. BRD obligatorio: esto ya es algo que se puede imponer en las páginas de discusión, pero según mi experiencia casi nunca se ha impuesto en ninguna página de discusión en ARBPIA (no se me ocurre ningún ejemplo). Tenemos una página que está bajo Consenso requerido ( Sionismo ). No sé si BRD obligatorio o Consenso requerido es mejor, o si alguno de ellos es una mejora respecto de ninguno, pero no tenemos suficientes datos para saberlo. Dejemos que los administradores los apliquen primero a las páginas y veamos cómo funcionan, antes de considerar aplicar alguno de ellos a toda el área temática.

Este tema ha estado abierto durante casi un mes y, sin embargo, nadie ha publicado aún una lista específica de las partes, ni las diferencias recientes de las interrupciones causadas por esas partes, ni enlaces a discusiones anteriores sobre esas interrupciones que no las resolvieron. Creo que, en lugar de mociones, sería mejor que el arbcom cerrara este ARCA sin ninguna acción específica ahora, pero con una invitación a los editores para que soliciten la revisión del arbcom presentando evidencia específica (en el ARCA o el ARC) de interrupciones recientes que no hayan sido abordadas por la comunidad. Levivich ( discusión ) 20:07, 16 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mientras tanto... aquí hay una verdadera disrupción en el área temática, que está ocurriendo ahora mismo: revert , revert , revert , revert , revert , todo por parte de cuentas nuevas en el área temática, al mismo tiempo que comentarios de alto perfil fuera de la wiki, por ejemplo, X post de Brianna Wu , X post de Hen Mazzig . Este es un ejemplo de por qué las "voces externas" no son necesariamente mejores que las voces de editores experimentados. Levivich ( discusión ) 20:33 16 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El comentario de Figureofnine de que existe una creencia generalizada, tanto dentro como fuera de la wiki, de que estos artículos son tendenciosos puede ser cierto, pero no hay un acuerdo generalizado sobre en qué dirección se manifiesta ese sesgo. Esta creencia generalizada no es un problema que se pueda solucionar, o que ni siquiera podamos intentar solucionar. Siempre habrá una creencia generalizada de que los artículos de Wikipedia son tendenciosos, al igual que existe una creencia generalizada de que el resto de los medios son tendenciosos, porque es verdad, porque todas las personas son tendenciosas en diversos grados, es inevitable. WP:NPOV tiene "neutral" en el título, pero redefine la palabra para que signifique algo único en Wikipedia. NPOV no significa libre de sesgos, significa que adoptamos el sesgo de la corriente principal. Decimos en wikivoice lo que dice la corriente principal, identificamos los puntos de vista disidentes que la corriente principal considera significativos e ignoramos los demás (llamándolos "marginales"). A esta adopción del sesgo de la corriente principal la llamamos "punto de vista neutral". Todo el mundo siempre estará en desacuerdo con algunas partes, pero serán partes diferentes. Claro, también creo que nuestros artículos de ARBPIA están plagados de sesgos, pero no las mismas partes de las que habla Hen Mazzig, y Arbcom no va a resolver ese desacuerdo entre nosotros. No estamos aquí por los sesgos en los artículos, y no creo que haya ninguna posibilidad de que vayamos a poner etiquetas NPOV en miles de artículos, ni vamos a elegir un organismo que pueda encontrar una manera de escribir un resumen sin sesgos de la disputa geopolítica más complicada y controvertida de la historia. Mantengamos nuestras expectativas razonables: podemos expulsar a las personas que están causando muchos problemas, y tal vez encontrar formas de reducir la cantidad de tiempo de los voluntarios que se pierde en escritos innecesarios (ejem), eso es lo que podemos intentar hacer. Levivich ( discusión ) 05:20, 18 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La afirmación de Coretheapple de que la comunidad de Wikipedia en su conjunto ha evitado esta área temática es fácilmente refutable. La guerra entre Israel y Hamás (creada hace menos de un año) ha sido editada por 1.288 editores y tiene 787 observadores de página. A modo de comparación, Israel (creada en 2001) tiene 5.686 editores y 2.928 observadores. Las explosiones de buscapersonas en el Líbano en 2024 (creada hace una semana) tiene 250 editores y 171 observadores. Esos cientos de editores forman parte de la comunidad de Wikipedia (como yo, al igual que los editores con los que trabajo todos los días). No han evitado esta área temática. Levivich ( discusión ) 16:35 24 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mociones más útiles serían:
  • Algo para solucionar el problema, aunque no sé qué (ECR no ha supuesto un problema para los LTA dedicados al área temática)
  • Una restricción de fuente como WP:APLRS , pero con una excepción para los eventos actuales. En los últimos días en Talk:Zionism, hemos tenido editores que han intentado citar la Biblia, Wikipedia y diccionarios como RS. Esto es algo que ocurre con demasiada frecuencia. Levivich ( discusión ) 16:23 24 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ CaptainEek : Tal vez "excluir" no sea la palabra correcta. La redacción actual de WP:Comité de Arbitraje/Procedimientos § Restricción requerida por consenso de fuentes confiables (se necesita un atajo) incluye institución de buena reputación y, posiblemente, algo como NYT, BBC o AP calificaría. Pero creo que se debe hacer una distinción entre usar los medios de noticias para los eventos actuales (bueno) y usar los medios de noticias para la historia (malo, especialmente porque hay muchas fuentes académicas disponibles para la historia). Incluso eso se divide en dos categorías más: usar los medios de noticias actuales para la historia (sigo pensando que es malo, porque hay estudios disponibles) y usar los medios de noticias históricos para la historia, como citar un artículo del New York Times de 1948 que dice que los árabes "huyeron" en lugar de "fueron expulsados", que es algo que he visto varias veces en esta área temática y que debería evitarse por completo. Yo lo expresaría así: apégate a los estudios, excepto para los eventos actuales, y luego usa los medios de comunicación tradicionales. Tal vez "aclaración" sea una palabra mejor para eso que "excluir"? En términos de definir "reciente", creo que un año mínimo o dos años máximo... el propósito es que una vez que exista investigación, se descarten los medios de comunicación en favor de la investigación. Se han necesitado unos 6 meses, diría yo, para que se desarrolle un cuerpo de investigación de tamaño decente sobre la guerra de 2023. Un año después, ahora tenemos una buena cantidad de artículos de revistas y se están empezando a publicar algunos libros. Para esta época el año que viene, no habrá necesidad de utilizar los medios de comunicación para los acontecimientos de 2023, ya que tendremos libros y artículos de revistas de los que sacar partido. Esta es mi opinión anecdótica y totalmente acientífica e incondicional, por supuesto :-) Pero en resumen: está bien utilizar el NYT para los acontecimientos del último año más o menos; no utilicen el "explicador de conflictos de propiedad intelectual" del NYT, en su lugar utilicen la investigación para eso; no utilicen periódicos de hace 50 o 100 años para nada. Levivich ( discusión ) 16:19 25 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Eek: Creo que mi preocupación sobre los acontecimientos actuales podría abordarse con una oración agregada a la restricción RS que dijera algo como "Se pueden utilizar medios de comunicación de buena reputación como fuente de acontecimientos actuales que aún no hayan sido cubiertos significativamente por la investigación académica". Eso es lo que quise decir con "excluir". Creo que esta oración se aplicaría a APL y ARBPIA y cualquier otra área temática en la que estuviera vigente la restricción RS. Levivich ( discusión ) 16:49 25 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Aoidh : ¿ Cuáles son los criterios de inclusión de la lista de partidos en su moción? Si analizamos la lista:

No parece que este grupo de editores esté causando problemas a largo plazo. ¿Por qué incluirnos en la lista?

Segunda pregunta: ¿qué hay de malo en hacer que las personas que quieren tener un caso presenten un WP:RFAR , con diferencias y enlaces que muestran una interrupción a largo plazo y un fracaso de la comunidad para manejarlo? ¿Por qué esa no es la respuesta aquí? Levivich ( discusión ) 17:09, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Aoidh : Aprecio tu respuesta rápida y directa, pero me temo que no entiendo por qué la interacción entre un grupo de editores se consideró demasiado compleja para que AE la abordara adecuadamente . ¿A qué interacciones entre este grupo de editores te refieres? ¿Y cuándo se consideró "demasiado compleja" y quién la presentó? Te pregunto: ¿qué hicimos exactamente yo y los demás para que pensaras que deberías iniciar un caso sobre nosotros? ¿Y cómo podría ser "demasiado complejo" si casi no hay sanciones y casi ningún caso de AE ​​sobre nadie en esta lista (ninguno en absoluto para la mayoría de las personas en esta lista)? ¿En qué se basa tu conclusión de que este grupo particular de editores ha tenido interacciones que se han considerado demasiado complejas para que AE las maneje? Levivich ( discusión ) 17:56, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo para profundizar en un ejemplo: Iskandar323. ¿Qué están haciendo en esta lista? No han sido sancionados desde 2021 y, por lo que sé, nunca fueron llevados a AE en ese período de tiempo (sin contar las presentaciones obviamente sin mérito presentadas por las cuentas bloqueadas por CU). Entonces, ¿qué base hay para decir que las interacciones que involucran a Iskandar323 son demasiado complejas para que AE las aborde adecuadamente? De manera similar, podría ir uno por uno por esta lista, incluyéndome a mí mismo. Pero hablemos solo de la fruta más fácil de alcanzar, que es Iskandar: ¿por qué están en esta lista? Levivich ( discusión ) 17:58, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de האופה

Vaya, una discusión muy larga.

No he estado aquí durante un tiempo debido a asuntos personales no relacionados con Wikipedia. Mi familia se ha visto afectada tanto económica como físicamente por la guerra en Israel, y tuve que tomarme el tiempo para ayudarlos.

Ayer volví y vi la larga discusión... me tomó tiempo leer todo, y admito que no fui capaz de analizar profundamente cada palabra escrita.

Quiero agradecer a Selfstudier , quien sigue de cerca mis ediciones y me llamó la atención sobre esta discusión.

En cuanto al tema en cuestión: nunca he participado en campañas de publicidad ni en campañas de colaboración. Simplemente estoy de acuerdo con otros editores que afirman que la situación en muchos artículos relacionados con Israel ya ha cruzado todos los límites del punto de vista no formal y está muy sesgada. Participo en páginas de discusión y he hecho devoluciones en casos en los que se promovió contenido problemático a pesar de no haber llegado a un consenso. Desafortunadamente, después de todas las guerras de edición, el contenido problemático permanece en estos artículos, dañando nuestra credibilidad. HaOfa ( discusión ) 07:53, 1 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Declaración de Bluethricecreamman

Statement by ABHammad

I think we have arrived at a point where editing in this area is not just a battleground environment but an ex-territory of the project. I recognize that I, too, took part in this in the past, not out of desire but because I felt I had no choice when I saw the consistent POV pushing and disregard for policies and consensus. There’s probably a reason why Wikipedia is now maybe the only mainstream source to use terms such as Gaza genocide and Israeli apartheid (read the lead) with its own voice. Many disputed changes like this have been introduced through edit warring (check Zionism, now defined as looking for the “colonization of land outside Europe”), in spite of substantial opposition. The current situation both scares away potential great editors and destroys our credibility and neutrality.

The feeling is that a bunch of 5-10 experienced editors have taken dominance over the area. Much of their edit histories show a focus on promoting one side's POV and discarding the other. Although some problematic editing occurs on both sides, it should be noted that the extent of POV editing on articles about one side is only a fraction of what occurs on articles about the other. This situation is perpetuated as new good-faith editors trying to balance the content often face aggressive behavior such as strong CTOP messages from Selfstudier followed by inquiries how did they find this and that article, "previous accounts" questions from Nableezy, accusations of "gaming the system to achieve EC status" from Iskandar323 on noticeboards, and as we seen in the last month, unverified tag-teaming allegations from Levivich. Those who survive all of the above then find their user talk pages filled with allegations, insults and other kinds of personal attacks and aspersions. Even five edits in this topic area can provoke such reactions. WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS are ignored - they are applied only to others. RfCs, AfDs, and RMs are manipulated through mass bludgeoning. They blame others for edit warring - but this is exactly what they are doing. Based on my experience with these editors over several months, I am afraid it would be naive to think that simply limiting word count in discussions would solve the problem. Looking over their logs, many of these editors already have a long history of warnings and short-term topic bans, so something else must be done this time. ABHammad (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what I was discussing is unfolding as we speak. Take a look at this discussion in an article recently created by an EC editor who appears to be an expert in security studies. Iskandar323 opens a technical move without any prior discussion [22], Selfstudier casts aspersions on other editors who joined the discussion and disagreed with them [23], Nableezy asks the opening editor on their page if it's their first account [24], and Sean Hoyland accused the creator of being a sock [25], just two days after blaming another editor for being a sock solely based on some shared topics of interest with a blocked editor who had 72,000(!) edits [26]. I can only guess how this editor feels right now and how long they will stay with us. ABHammad (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As conduct issues are still pending resolution, the battleground mentality and disruptive behavior does not stop. Involved parties such as Nableezy, Sean.Hoyland and Levivich continue to (falsely [27]) accuse editors of opposing of other point-of-views with accusations of tag-teaming and sockpuppetry. Unsurprisingly, one main argument centers around differing points of view [28], continuing the line of targeting editors with different point of views to theirs.
Meanwhile, we have another experienced editor changing the first line of Hezbollah's article to describe it as a resistance group [29], while advocating to remove the group's terrorist designation, a consensus in Western nations, from the first paragraph [30]. The same editor has also used Samidoun, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands for supporting the October 7 attacks, to claim Samir Kuntar’s innocence in the lead of his article. [31] When I pointed out that Samidoun is an unreliable source, Nableezy responded with, Oh ffs, that a government says some group is a terrorist organization has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source for some statement. The IDF is a proscribed terrorist organization in Iran, should we not cite it for anything? [32]. Nableezy also says that It’s just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP[33] and calls them "a registered charity in Canada", [34] but the USDT says Samidoun is "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)."[35] Troubling? indeed.
The intimidation of new editors persists, bad faith accusations continue, and skewed content continues to be disseminated (in that case — based on a terrorist organization). ABHammad (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent remarks framing sockpuppetry as our biggest problem are just empty rhetoric. Even if those accused were actually guilty—though I personally believe blocking them was a mistake, as their behavior appears quite distinct, with different topics, writing styles, times, languages, learning curves, and so on—it's a minor issue. The newer editors joining in recent years hold no real influence over what's actually happening in ARBPIA. This issue doesn't compare to fifteen years of the topic's 'regulars' engaging in edit wars, intimidating new editors, and relying on extremist sources, some linked to authoritarian regimes or terrorist organizations, all leading to a large-scale bias, making fringe ideas seem mainstream, and massively distorting our content on multiple topics. ABHammad (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

1.There is another relevant recent related AE thread, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani. Many of the editors here, including myself and several of the uninvolved administrators, were participants and the case revolved around behavior (and content) at the Zionism article and this same subject matter is a part of the current case, 6 Levivich diffs refer (in the last two statements).Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2.This one as well (PeleYoetz). Editors named here continue to respond there. Although procedurally a separate AE case, it was filed contemporaneously with and is part and parcel of the related AE thread. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.In the interim, avoiding this sort of thing or this would be as well. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4.Several editors suggest that editors are scared off by a toxic environment. this example for the Zionism article (Sean.hoyland), shows the contrary, an influx of new editors in recent times. Difficult to be certain without more data but my sense is that the pattern will hold up for other articles as well. It is of course possible that both things are true. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is lower than it was the day before the war began. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that there has been an influx of new editors regardless of the temperature.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.@Nishidani: Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment +1, I would indeed like to see the data. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6: Apart from myself, and given the number of times they are mentioned, I think we should specify just which editors are the regulars. Just so we know. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7: @Barkeep49: The difficulty is that following "referral", based on a case that was not even resolved, 4 editors were designated for investigation with no apparent basis or other case specified as reasons for such an investigation. If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right now, suggesting that the only basis for said designation is the content of the replies (of editors and admins) in said case, which lacks a certain logic afaics. Which is not to say definitively that there should not be a case, just that it should have proper antecedents and not merely come about ad hoc.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8: Re BM's "evidence", the same case Nableezy refers to, BM characterizes my position as not expressing a stance on the use of the term massacre when I !voted against it! -> Oppose Incident is a euphemistic whitewash for what occurred. Would support 2008 killings in Bureij or similar Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the next two on the list are RM's that I proposed and the result accorded with what I proposed. I will waste no more time with this, if anyone would like to accuse me of POV pushing based on such evidence, feel free to do so. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9: If someone insists, rather simplistically imo, on labeling myself, then a more appropriate label from my own perspective would be pro human rights/International law and the alleged pro-Palestinianism derives from my belief that the hr/il rights of Palestinians are breached far more frequently than those of Israelis, in particular Jewish Israelis. And guess what, I can source that, with ease. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10: Enforced BRD or WP:CRP is useful and one such is currently operating to good effect at Zionism; for bludgeoning, I would suggest instead a rule that direct replies to !votes be disallowed, indirect replies and responses only in own sections as at AE. As for exclusion from !voting, I would go along with this provided that every editor that had made even one edit to an AI/IP article was similarly excluded (I assume that such excluded editors would still be permitted to open formal discussions? eg opening an RM is usually considered equivalent to a bolded !vote.) Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11: Motion 5 might well be the case that should have been brought in the first place, now the party list appears limited, one might in addition hope that, ah, "behavior wrt content" might also be subject of examination. Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12: The reason why Iskandar made the list is apparent on reading the referred AE case. Whether that constitutes a good reason for them being in the list is a different matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13: @Aoidh: An ARCA ARC then, that might work. Just to clarify, the initial evidence is to revolve around interactions between certain editors, I am still unclear how that list of editors was determined? Were some editors involved in the 2 AE cases excluded on some basis? Can admins be parties? It seems at first blush, that SFR qualifies as a party. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14: @Tryptofish: after fully reviewing evidence, will remove some experienced editors from certain kinds of discussions, that will lead to improvements in the editing environment (and in AE's ability to handle complaints) Prejudging much? Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I don't think the referral of this particular case and the inclusion of the first two items listed as identified disruption dealing with edit warring necessarily means that AE can't deal with such or didn't in this instance. Just because the experiment blew up the lab does not mean it was a bad thing to try. Seemed like a reasonable request and a result of you need more evidence to demonstrate tag team editing seems reasonable, which everyone could have and maybe should have accepted and walked away from. fiveby(zero) 17:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, these knowledgeable Wikipedians, who exactly are they? If you are thinking of those often claiming some greater knowledge or ability in this topic area, then oh boy do you have it wrong. Here is some "source misrepresentation", blatant and obvious. If members of the committee can't see it happening now and do something about it then they are the last people who should feel qualified to perform some kind of grand "source analysis" for the topic area. fiveby(zero) 21:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, WP:BESTSOURCES. In general i've seen a greater commitment to source quality in this topic area than elsewhere (tho might strongly object to some readings of the sources). Are you suggesting a rule that will only constrain the reasonable editors, but one which the unreasonable are incapable or unwilling to comply with? For instance i would not be surprised to see a citation to the Hebrew Bible in the Zionism article, and i would expect (depending on how detailed the content) citations to contemporary reporting of "fled" in that section for Haifa discussed the other day. Of course the citations would be aids to the reader and not sources to build content from. The only time i've seen something along the lines of that "Reliable source consensus-required restriction"'s article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution applied it was causing more problems than it was worth. fiveby(zero) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Two suggestions to improve the topic area:

1) Make edit summaries mandatory and require them to be accurate.
2) Change extended confirmed account requirements from "account has existed for at least 30 days" to ~"account has edited on at least 30 different days"

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I tend to agree with Ravpapa's assessment that we have probably "exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area". I have no idea what that would look like.

I would like to know the answer to the following question

Answers like "It's against the rules", "It's dishonest", "It's hypocritical", "They will be discovered and blocked" are wrong answers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a perceived "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more singularly focused Wikipedian" divide, I'm not sure this tells you anything very useful. There is already training material teaching people how to resemble a multi-topic interested Wikipedian. This is good advice because there is utility in diluting POV edits, edit war participation etc. A few strategic edit warring edits in a sea of multi-topic edits will likely be treated differently than a few strategic edit warring edits by an account that resembles an SPA, even though they are the same. It may also devalue article intersection evidence between accounts and reduce the chance of a checkuser being approved. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for humility

This is for all the people making sweeping statements.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being realistic/know your limits

It's quite difficult to reconcile calls to topic ban long term experienced users with things we know about the topic area. We know quite a lot. For example, we know the following things.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kip, regarding socks,

...what are the answers? Nobody knows, but we know from the data that they are a constant presence, make thousands of edits, participate in many discussions and have a significant impact on the dynamics of the topic area (including the things often referred to as 'heat' and 'temperature' - slightly misleading terms because those are measurable quantities in the real world that are unreliable subjective guesses here).

I think there's a bit of a failure to factor in the significance of socks. The existence of an effectively unsanctionable class changes many things in important ways (this is true in other systems too). There are asymmetries in the payoffs and penalties for socks vs non-socks in the wiki-game. There are asymmetries in the costs of preparing and processing an SPI report vs creating a disposable account, which is a virtually frictionless process. These asymmetries, and there are many, seem to be very significant features of the topic area. Using disposable accounts appears to be a better strategy for the righteous advocate and it's not obvious how to change that.

Certainly, it's a problem that could be dealt with somewhat easily via SPI, but that would probably require significant changes to current norms about checkuser usage and evidence. What I would like to see, just out of interest, are experiments e.g. split the topic area up into article subsets, have different rule sets for the subsets, see what happens. Have a closely guarded set of articles with all of the existing rules, any new remedies, any new entry barriers, checkusers for every editor active there etc., the strictest possible enforcement environment. Have another set that could be a land for the oppressed and mistreated ban evading victims of WP:SOCK, for the disposable account fan, for people to edit war and advocate to their hearts content and stick a disclaimer on the articles for readers. Things like that would be interesting and possibly informative.

Are statements of the form "it's toxic disaster zone" true statements or just stories? It's not what I observe. It seems to have improved in some ways. What I have observed over time is what seems to be a gradual transition from things like edit warring as a solution, to talking and the use of tools like RFCs etc. But the topic area is so large and complex with so many individual actors, and so many events, that it is difficult to make reliable general statements about it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meme check #1TLDR -> some data.

How true are statements about editors being scared away from the topic area by a toxic environment created by entrenched editors etc.?

It's true that there are instances that can be selected out of the large number of comments on talk pages and elsewhere to tell this story. Sometimes they will be sincere statements and other times they will be insincere manipulative statements by ban evading socks playing the victim in the hopes of getting perceived opponents blocked.

One way to see whether editors being scared away could be to

If the claim is true, you might expect to see a couple of things

I've tried to have a look at this using 3 datasets, two approximations of the 'topic area' and a set of randomly selected Wikipedia articles.

Here are the results.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, removing topic area articles created from Oct 7, 2023 onwards doesn't seem to make much difference. I guess many editors might be flowing upstream from the new post-Oct 7 extensions to the topic area to update pre-Oct 7 articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meme check #2TLDR -> more data

Many opinions about the topic area talk of a set of editors ('experienced editors', 'the regulars', 'battleground editors', 'the culprits', 'entrenched editors' etc.) who have worked together to some effect.

Can we see this effect?

I've tried to look at this by...

Here are the results. The distributions vary but younger accounts appear to dominate in the topic area in terms of revision counts, at least based on this small sample. It would be interesting to see what this distribution looks like for the entire topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using evidence-based approaches

I would like to commend BilledMammal for their evidence-based approach. This way, people can discuss methodology and evidence rather than assert things about the state of PIA. Now, I was a bit disappointed to only score 89% for the percentage edits in the topic area because it is supposed to 100%, or thereabouts as it says on my user page, so I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. But regarding methodology, the including "all editors with more than 500 edits since 2022 who have made 50%+ of their edits in the ARBPIA topic area" will inevitably miss a lot. Perhaps it is unavoidable to some extent. It misses the contributions of AndresHerutJaim's socks for example (the cause of a previous ArbCom case about canvassing). By my count, their socks made 1927 revisions spread over 159 accounts since 2022 to articles and talk pages within the topic area (using the same definition of the topic area as BilledMammal). If you choose revisions since 2020 it's 3703, and since 2018 it's 6504, and I'm not sure any of the accounts would cross the 50% in topic area threshold. And that's just the identified accounts for one sock edit source. We have no idea what the success rate is for sock identification. And somewhat dishearteningly I can see several more (what I regard as) possible socks in the activity statistics. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PIA dynamics

If there is a case, I think one of the things it could try to address is the following (often cyclical) property of the system, which appears to be quite common as far as I can tell.

An obvious sledgehammer partial solution to Step 2 is to just EC protect every article in the PIA topic area to disincentivize disposable non-EC account creation, but Step 1 should not happen in the first place and is clearly much harder to address.

I'll also add that in my view, a case that only includes parties who do not employ deception, who are not evading topic bans/blocks etc., is about as likely to succeed in producing good results as a study that only includes data from participants who are easy to access, while ignoring an important subpopulation that is harder to reach. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replicators (socks) - the gift that keeps giving

Again, hats off to BilledMammal for bring the receipts. Little time to look in detail right now and probably plenty to think about. But one quick comment on 'it demonstrates that the issue of sockpuppets is less significant than we believe.' The amount of sock activity is a difficult thing to image and quantify, a bit like corruption, black markets, Advanced Persistent Threat group activity, but we can see some features.

See plot

And as tempted as I am to name names because I think AGF is counterproductive in PIA when dealing with replicating threat actors, I will just say that I can still see many accounts in the stats that I regard (based on technical data) as probable socks. Maybe someone will file SPIs at some point, but it is unlikely to be me because the cost/benefit makes it too expensive. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea for a fun project for someone to make something potentially pretty. Build a directed graph of the sock-related part of the ludicrously large Wikipedia category graph and color code the nodes and/or edges for actors that have made PIA revisions (and/or other contentious areas) based on something, revision count, rev date, SPA-ness etc. I imagine the PIA related part of the sock graph would be quite small. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LabelsRegarding labelling editors pro-this or pro-that, this is a useful shorthand for casual discussion, but for analysis labelling should really be deterministic/repeatable/based on a decision procedure etc. Also, if I had to apply a label to myself it would be pro-Wikipedia (or maybe pro-human...that might be a stretch thinking about it). I think for many people it seems to be quite easy to mis-categorize pro-Wikipedia as pro-Palestinian. Perhaps this follows naturally from the claim that the media, organizations, governments, academia (everyone?) etc. is biased against Israel, so following sources will make you look biased against Israel. It's all a bit self-referential. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammel, that table is interesting, but my challenge would be - what is the utility of an unfalsifiable label? Also, if I made that I would have pretty low credence in the labels because I don't know how to write an algorithm to reliably tell the difference between "a pro-Palestine point of view"/"a pro-Israel point of view" and a policy compliant source-based view. This is the tricky thing for me. There's the personal bias, plus a person's source sampling bias that limits what they can see, plus their personal interpretation of policies like due weight, plus what they personally identify as bias etc. and you can't just do a Fourier transform to decompose them. Sticking a label on editors strikes me as an understandable attempt to impose order on something more complex and chaotic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once discovered, a sockpuppet account is automatically blocked. - Thebiguglyalien

This statement is false.

Regarding Zero0000's A proper analysis would need to compare reliable sources against !voting patterns....absolutely. I would go as far as to say the entire pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine model is very likely to be the wrong model. It's a trap, sometimes used intentionally, sometimes used unintentionally, something that traps people into ways of thinking about solutions that cannot possibly produce effective solutions. Better models could be honest vs dishonest, Wikipedia rules > personal preferences vs Wikipedia rules < personal preferences. There are probably lots of better models. The objective function for PIA is poorly defined. If it is something like to maximize policy compliance and minimize disruption, how can we ever hope to achieve that if we can't even prevent a person from editing in the topic area. Does anyone believe blocking the O.maximov and FourPi sock accounts will change anything when they probably already have alternative disposable accounts. Nothing can be done about personal bias. But plenty can be done about reducing dishonesty in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, regarding The top 20 contributors made 23% of the edits., the 100 revision (in namespaces 0,1) cut off makes these results a particular way of looking at the topic area. Without the limit, the topic area looks a bit different. For example, from 2022-01-01 to the present there were 44739 distinct actors (excluding bots) that made at least 1 edit to a topic area article or talk page. 'Actor' rather than 'user' because that includes 23124 distinct unregistered IPs. And the total number of revisions to those 2 namespaces was 473212 in that period, which is considerably more than the sum of the PIA column in the stats. So, for me, this way of looking at events in the topic area with an edit count cutoff and a notion of dominant contributors presupposes things about the actual nature of the topic area. It divides contributions up in way that is great for pointing fingers in a partisan information war but may not reflect reality very well. From a single account 'contributor' perspective it seems to be the contributors with low edit counts that may have the largest impact on topic area (although it is impossible to really tell). I'll make some plots for the entire topic area over various periods to show who is doing the editing (in terms of account age) when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, I'm just counting revisions and excluding bots so it shouldn't change the top 20 counts. Or maybe I would get slightly different counts. I haven't actually checked. Should probably do that but I can't imagine it would be significantly different as we are doing roughly the same thing. What would be nice would be to see how many reverts are spent on enforcing ARBECR, but there is a lot of diversity in people's edit summaries making it tricky. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "restore faith in the project that many do not have, or have lost" is a valid objective. Policy compliance has no dependency at all on the amount of faith people out in the world have in it. The fact that there are plenty of easily manipulated people out there who can be persuaded to believe something shouldn't have any impact on content decisions in my view. There are rules, we should just follow the rules, and people who don't like the result are free to whine about it and monetize the attention they receive. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion

In terms of motions, can anyone think of any simple practical measures that might reduce the impact of ban evasion on the topic area? Unfortunately, it seems that ban evading users tend to be sampled from the ends of the bias spectrum and some have a tendency to start fires. It could be argued that this entire discussion was triggered (at least in part) by ban evasion, so it seems appropriate to try to address it.

It's obviously not possible to know how many edits are made by ban evading actors, but it is possible to quantify ban and block evading revisions in the PIA topic area (or rather an approximation of the topic area - templated pages and pages in both Wikiprojects Israel and Palestine).

I don't have any ideas other than perhaps lowering the barrier for checkuser tool usage in PIA to a set of simple triggers like edit warring, receiving a block, ban evasion-like behavior (e.g. mismatch between edit count and experience), anything that could be considered "disruptive editing", the phrase used in the checkuser policy.Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, thank you for the response. I understand. I sometimes wonder whether WMF would benefit from adopting some kind of 'commitment to authenticity' that you see in some social media companies that have to deal with similar ban evasion/inauthentic actor issues. Now that Wikipedia has matured into one of the most-visited websites, plays an important role in large-language model training and will probably become even more significant with models using Wikipedia/Wikidata etc. as knowledge bases to ground their responses, a system that doesn't do very well at preventing people willing to use deception from generating content and participating in consensus forming processes seems a bit problematic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, regarding "the Wikipedia community as a whole has avoided this subject area". I also thought this was probably the case, but the data appears to indicate that it is not the case. The chart in section 'Meme check #1' above appears to show that the topic area is more attractive to editors than Wikipedia in general, at least based on a comparison of the topic area and 15,000 random selected articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly and monthly revision counts by all actors in the PIA topic area over time

See plot (requested by Levivich). Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad, actually, my interest is largely technical nowadays. I need results to evaluate the reliability of output generated by something I'm working on out of curiosity. And I would still appreciate an answer to my question here. But I'm also interested in honesty in the topic area because I think its undervalued. So, if there is to be a battle it should on the side of honesty and against dishonesty via ban evasion. But it is a costly battle that I suspect can't be won with the current tools and culture, so I'm unsure whether it is a battle worth fighting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: Nableezy's "Given the result of the SPI, I will simply restate my core contention..." a contention that I think is objectively and observably true, can I suggest that more effort is made to ensure that AE is a ban evading actor-free zone. It is not a safe space for honest people to discuss and resolve issues without interference from dishonest ban evading partisan actors. On the plus side, when a sock lobbies for blocks, this could be a complement because it might suggest they think the other party is more honest than them and will not employ ban evasion if blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Statement by Dan Murphy

The "dispute" as defined here is "accounts on Wikipedia disagree about various things." In my case I have recently disagreed with a number of accounts about the history of Zionism. On the one hand, early zionists and historians of zionism describe it as a colonial project of settlement. On the other hand, some wikipedia accounts really don't want the article here to describe it as such. Many of those accounts have turned out to be sockpuppets of previous accounts long banned from this area. I'd be shocked if the Peleyoetz account named in this report isn't one, too [36]. The abuse of sockpuppets is a powerful advantage at Wikipedia, and wooden enforcement of teh rulz about conduct, ignorant of content and context, a powerful disincentive to being honest and straightforward.

No matter. This unfocused, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks request, is a bad idea.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I dont see why AE appeals should be at the discretion of the imposing admin be only heard by the committee. AE actions are already superblocks, removing two of the places they can be heard turns them closer to super duper blocks. The threshhold to overturn an AE action is already pretty high, and I cannot really understand why anybody thinks they should be even higher. Enforcd BRD is basically making what a skilled obstructionist can turn into a glacial place into an ice age. How would consensus be determined? Do only discussions with uninvolved admins closing get resolved? Things that would actually help? A quicker trigger finger on talk page bans for foruming. Same for pushing unsourced views. The anti-bludgeoning one is good in theory, maybe good in practice maybe not. Can find out I guess. But the enforced BRD one I think is accepting that anybody who can wikilawyer well enough will be able to freeze an article; Oh its a V failure ... Oh, I see the source, well VNOT, and it is not DUE ... Well I see it's widely cited but it still is not NPOV ... No, I dont have any sources showing that its views are challenged, I think you should first demonstrate that all sources agree with this POV ... Well I disagree, and ONUS requires consensus and because I disagree there is no consensus. And repeat. nableezy - 21:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a fundamental misreading of the topic area to open a case with that list of parties. I decline to take SFR's bait here from his last statement, something I should have done in the AE that precipated this request in hindsight, but if there is a case to be opened then I think you all need to examine the serial tendentious editing and yes propagandizing that occurs here. And the list of parties should expand with that scope. It would, in my opinion, include users such as Andrevan and SPECIFICO, along with a number of less established users who have repeatedly engaged in such editing such as the group of users who, along with an Icewhiz sock and some compromised accounts, were distorting the sources at Israel to obfuscate the causes of the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948, eg האופה (diff, search various causes), ABHammad (diff). If you actually are willing to examine what editors are doing in these articles with something deeper than counting reverts and actually looking at who is pushing through material at odds with the scholarship then please do that. If this, like cases of yore, is going to be a superficial look at it then I suppose I cant convince you otherwise, but, as the committee did back then and as some of the admins here were trying to do in an AE case before most of the participants were found to be compromised accounts or socks of banned editors (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani, see for example this comment by one of the admins brushing aside the later proven completely correct suspicion that a user was not exactly in good standing) end up, as the most likely scenario, further cede this topic area to the dishonest editors such as NoCal100 and Icewhiz who never really get blocked or banned, because they just make another account to start over with. My comment at that AE remains my view on both that request and this one. nableezy - 23:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pins and needles to see what happens with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OdNahlawi and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz, which probably should be merged together. Ignore this as a ranting from a problematic regular, but my view of what is happening here, as it has over and over and over and over again, is that fires are being started by banned editors with zero inclination to be honest, and people who are observing from a distance are saying oh it's so hot over there. Whatever you all decide here, my sincerest hope is that your efforts be pointed towards the goal of making an encyclopedia. And I hope that in keeping that goal in mind that you do what you can to help those editors who are serious about that aim as demonstrated by their editing and remove those who are not. I doubt this is going to be the way, but who knows maybe Wikipedia will surprise me. nableezy - 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the result of the SPI, I will simply restate my core contention about nearly every one of these issues. We are all collectively being played by a few individuals who do not operate, at all, within the rules here. Yes, it is hot, and there are certainly times where my patience ran thin and I was harsher than I should have been and raised the temperature myself. But we're all humans here, it is unreasonable to expect people to deal with bad faith editing repeatedly, sometimes continuously, without occasionally getting pissed off. Icewhiz, NoCal, Andres, they have an unlimited number of opportunities to bait somebody into something ban-worthy. The editors who are operating in good faith here and are abiding by our policies are targeted over and over by these bad faith actors, and we're expected to have an unlimited amount of patience and good will. If not having that unlimited amount of patience is ban-worthy then so be it, but we are being played here. nableezy - 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I'm not blaming all the topics ills on just socks of banned users, but I am saying that they are primarily responsible for getting things to this temperature where people pop off. You were on the committee that dealt with the email canvassing by one LTA. You and all the current members of this committee (I think), know that I knew for a fact that I was editing alongside people who were lying to my face. That I knew people were cheating and attempting to skew content through underhanded methods. If you look at the past NoCal100 SPIs you will see over and over again that I knew that I was once again editing with NoCal100, and I just had to suck it up and keep editing alongside somebody I knew was lying. For example Inf-in MD was reported, by me, in Oct 2021. Kept editing until being blocked in December 2021 as a sock after he once again tried to bait me into responding in a way that would result in my ban. Im not going to pretend Im perfect here, Im not going to pretend that there arent times where the frustration of editing with people I *know* are lying to me doesnt boil over. And yes, I do need to work on not letting that happen, but I dont think even you, as level-headed and calm as you invariably are on-wiki, would never lose your cool when you are being lied to over and over. Maybe you wouldnt, after all you were elected repeatedly to positions of trust based on that disposition and demeanor and I have not been (yet). But I dont think it is reasonable to think that people are going to maintain the patience of Job through years of underhanded efforts directed at them. nableezy - 15:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

There are a significant number of issues in this topic area that it is likely only ARBCOM can address, including:

  1. POV pushing
    Including both editors switching their stance to conform to their POV (for example, supporting using massacre as a descriptive term only when Israelis were targeted, or only when Palestinians were targeted) and editors misrepresenting sources.
  2. Stealth canvassing
  3. Incivility
    Occasional lapses are forgivable, but it has become common for editors to ignore the fourth pillar. This drives editors away from the topic area, worsening issues with POV pushing and stealth canvassing.
    The only way the topic area can be fixed is by fixing this.
  4. Bludgeoning
    See ARBPIA discussion statistics for an assessment of the extent of the problem. For technical reasons, it is currently limited to discussions on article talk pages and at RSN.
    In response to the comment by SashiRolls, only three listings (out of 109) were significantly impacted by sock puppets:
    1. 26 replies out of 59 by Levivich at Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? were to sock puppets
    2. 15 replies out of 45 by Selfstudier at Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? were to sock puppets
    3. 12 replies out of 34 by Selfstudier at Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation/Archive 2#Requested move 9 June 2024 were to sock puppets
    The impact of sock puppets on this issue is trivial and not worth concerning ourselves with. Added 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ScottishFinnishRadish's word limit proposal, I don't think that will have the desired result. Editors are often required to review a wide array of sources, such as when attempting to determining if a viewpoint is in the majority or what the WP:COMMONNAME is, and a word limit will impede this. This will in turn worsen one of the other issues in the topic area, POV pushing.
Instead, I think a comment limit - perhaps ten comments per discussion - will be more effective at preventing the back-and-forth and repetition of points that causes discussions to expand unproductively. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: My aim was to review a representative sample of discussions in the topic space, rather than providing a sample biased towards discussions that I was aware of. To do this, I limited the discussions to two clearly defined areas; talk pages in both the Israel and Palestine Wikiprojects, and RSN.
This does mean I missed at least one discussion that I am aware of where I was too enthusiastic, but it also means I missed discussions where you were too enthusiastic - it balances out.
I am also aware, and prominently state in the analysis, that it is only an approximation - while most examples listed will be bludgeoning, exceptions will exist, including possibly the discussion you mention.
Finally, as I said on the analysis page, I am willing to rerun it with different configurations, including an expanded list of discussions. I am also working to implement the recommendations on the talk page, to make the data more accurate and useful. BilledMammal (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: There is a lot of POVPUSHING at RSN, but from what I've seen the issue is more common - and more effective - in the opposite direction from what you've seen.
For example, looking at two of the discussions you've listed:
Considering that policy doesn't provide any support for considering a source unreliable on grounds of bias, I find this example particularly problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: I don’t consider the distinction relevant, because there is no basis in policy to consider sources unreliable due to bias, regardless of the level of bias. Tolerating editors making the assessment that source A is more biased than source B, and thus A is unreliable while B is not, is to tolerate POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: The purpose of RSN is to determine the reliability of sources, not the level of bias. There is no basis in policy to consider biased sources unreliable, and that means that editors attempting to argue that "source they don’t like" is more biased and thus less reliable than "source they like" are POV pushing.
Alone, not enough to warrant action - but it is another piece of evidence that adds to evidence like only supporting the use of "massacre" when the victims are from the side they support. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I've attempted to address your request to identify Sub-5000-edit accounts which are basically SPAs on the PIA area, some of which will inevitably be socks but even if they're not are equally disruptive with ARBPIA activity statistics.
I've included all editors with more than 500 edits since 2022 who have made 50%+ of their edits in the ARBPIA topic area. Sub-5000-edit accounts are marked with *; sock puppets and masters are marked with bold.
@Aoidh: What sort of information would be helpful in determining a scope? In addition, will parties be decided at this stage, or will parties be able to be added during the evidence phase? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the prevalence of issues in the topic area, the following may be helpful:
  1. RM statistics, regarding the prevalence of POV pushing
  2. Activity statistics, regarding the prevalence of sock puppets and single purpose accounts
    @Sean.hoyland: I think it demonstrates that the issue of sockpuppets is less significant than we believe. In 2024, only one sockmaster is in the top 100 editors by edit count within the topic area.
    @Nishidani: I think it also addresses your concerns regarding the parties list; because it shows that the topic area is dominated by editors who generally align with a pro-Palestinian position, we would expect that such editors would make up the majority of a representative party list.
BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: As I said on that page:

Bolded votes in the discussion were then automatically reviewed to determine whether they supported or opposed. This process is not perfect, and manual review was then used for some of the discussions of the most prolific editors. Please raise any identified misclassifications on the talk page.

Immediately jumping to accusations that an editor is "lying" is not aligned with WP:AGF, and is emblematic of the civility issues in the topic area.
With that said, I don't believe #3 is as incorrect as you make out; your !vote was:

Oppose - euphemistic in the extreme, an "incident" in which an army kills 6 children and a cameraman, and all casualties are civilians? No source calls it an incident either. As far as sources calling it a massacre, well this was in the article until it was removed.

You oppose the move, and you make arguments in support of "massacre".
However, to avoid dispute, I have changed that cell to   -  , as while you can argue you didn't support "massacre", I don't think you're arguing you opposed it? I've also manually reviewed all the others of yours, and they appear correct; if you disagree with any of the others, please let me know.
@Selfstudier: You're right, corrected. Please let me know if there are other misclassifications.
In general, that table is intended to provide on overview of the issue in the topic area, for the purpose of helping the arb's determine scope and parties. While it will be useful in any case that is opened, and I see it as evidence of POV pushing, I don't believe it proves POV pushing by itself; additional analysis of the comments and !votes made is required, such as I did here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: To avoid dispute, I've switched #22 for Iskandar323 to   -  . I've manually re-reviewed all of Iskandar323's other !votes, and they appear accurate, but if you have any issues with them please let me know - although preferably on the talk page, to avoid requiring the Arb's to wade through the collaborative process of improving that table. If I refuse to change the table I think that would be when it is appropriate to raise here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Seggallion (talk · contribs) is included in the activity statistics; they're grouped as one of Icewhiz's socks:   Icewhiz (talk · contribs) (×6)  . As for the RM statistics, Seggallion only participated in one; if you like, I can try to group sockpuppets under their masters as I did at the activity statistics, but better to discuss that on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: My sympathies lie more with Israel than with Palestine, although I try to recognize and account for any bias that introduces in my thinking - while editors are allowed to have a POV, I think the first step in ensuring their editing is aligned with NPOV is for them to recognize that POV, as it allows them to try to manage it.
I think it would also be helpful if you told us how you classify yourself? BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Personally, I don't subscribe to the position that the media, organizations, governments, academia (everyone?) etc. is biased against Israel; while some individual sources are biased, I also think a lot of the criticism of Israel is fair.
There are some editors who do subscribe to that position - but there are also editors who subscribe to the position that the opposite is true, that they are biased against Palestine.
Generally, I don't think we're mischaracterizing pro-Wikipedia as pro-Palestinian, but if you want something more solid I think this table by Thebiguglyalien, and my RM table, is useful. BilledMammal (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the label is unfalsifiable; evidence can be provided for and against it.
I think we can also ensure it is accurate through a collaborative process. For example, looking at the top 20 editors at activity statistics, I believe that 13, collectively making 75,383 edits to the topic area since 2022, generally align with a pro-Palestinian position. I believe two, collectively making 5,832 edits, generally align with a pro-Israeli position. The remaining five, collectively making 19,550 edits, are either neutral or have a position that I have been unable to determine:
If you - or anyone - disagree with any of these, then I think it would be helpful to discuss so that we can create a consensus list, although I would ask that the discussion be opened somewhere other than here. For the avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean these editors are POV pushing. For example, while I feel it's obvious where Vice regent's sympathies lie, I've been very impressed by their ability to put them aside to comply with NPOV.
As for the utility, I think it helps us determine whether concerns such as those raised by Nishidani that the party list is unrepresentative, as well as concerns such as those raised by Number 57 that the topic area is dominated by editors holding a specific POV, are accurate.
As a general note, I think one of the issues with the topic area is that it is common for editors to refuse to acknowledge their own POV, while frequently insisting that the editors they disagree with have a POV. It's possible to manage a POV and edit neutrally, but only if one is able to recognize and acknowledge that POV - the frequent failure, on both sides, to do so is why we have a POV pushing issue in this topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich and Nishidani: The terms just means that the editor sympathizes with that side more than the other. Both positions are reasonable, and it doesn't mean they are anti-Palestinian/anti-Israeli, nor does it mean that there is a problem with those editors contributions.
All it does is help us understand the dynamics of the topic area, and is particularly helpful in understanding the background to comments like I say that because there is a massive imbalance in the people singled out, according to the usual perceptions of the IP area's POV-stand-off.
I also think, Levivich, that you're too focused on the sock issue. It exists, although perhaps it is not as impactful as we previously believed, but socks aren't the only issue in the topic area. POV-pushing among established editors is also rife, and is far more impactful than POV-pushing by socks.
The "massacre" RM's demonstrate that well; we have editors consistently, based on their own POV, saying that massacre's are only perpetrated by one side - and when we review those discussions we find that those editors present contradictory arguments to support this disparity.
(Nishidani, I do have more to say in regards to your comments - I'm not ignoring the questions/statements you made - but I don't have time at the moment) BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: You misunderstand; I’m using the second definition of "sympathise", not the first. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: That’s a discussion about moving from a title using "massacre" (Re'im music festival massacre) to a title using "massacre" (Supernova music festival massacre) In other words, the "massacre" aspect isn’t being considered, which is why it isn’t included in the table:

discussions that proposed moving an article to or away from a title containing "massacre" were reviewed

Can you clarify your point about the other articles? I don’t fully understand the argument you are trying to make.
(Also, I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked you above, when I answered the equivalent question from you) BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:
Regarding this comment:
For your first point, I disagree that it sheds factual light. There is no useful information from someone supporting moving "massacre" to "massacre"; indeed, it is indistinguishable from someone opposing moving "massacre" to "massacre".
For you second point, I want to say I am tired of the incivility in this topic area. It drove me from it before, with the only reason I returned to it being the current conflict, and it is sufficiently bad that I believe as soon as the current conflict ends I will withdraw again.
Both your points, but especially the second, are emblematic of that incivility. A dozen requests have been made of me at User talk:BilledMammal/ARBPIA activity statistics and User talk:BilledMammal/ARBPIA discussion statistics, and I have spent a considerable amount of time addressing those requests, including two of three you made.
However, you ignore all of this, to focus on one of two that I haven't yet been able to address - and you use that failure to accuse me of manipulating the data to prevent it from disturb[ing] the point [I] want to make. I admit, I don't consider it a priority (although I have already spent some time on it), as I don't see what useful information it would provide, and your explanation didn't clarify that - but not prioritizing your request is not the same as manipulating the data, and there is no justification for these assumptions of bad faith.
Regarding this comment:
(a) - It does; Edits made since 2022 to article and talk space
(c) - This is actually similar to the other request that so far I've been unable to comply with. If you can provide me a couple of topic areas of similar size to ARBPIA, I can address both your request and NebYs. BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: Because it’s data, not methodology.
I'm not sure why you think that I believe it is unrelated to disruption in the topic area. It is related, but it’s not in the scope of that table, which is focused on presenting information about individual actors.
If you want to present evidence about grouped actors, I again encourage you to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I object to being listed here. But now that I'm here, I'll say that I don't see any suggestions so far that would make an improvement to the I/P area. Here are some points:

Here is something that will improve the atmosphere of formal discussions (RMs, RfCs, AfDs, etc): Require everyone to stick to their own statement, regardless of how many times they add to it (like at AE). This will eliminate 90% of bludgeoning right away. For RfCs: one statement in the !votes section and one statement in the Discussion section. Zerotalk 09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Sean.hoyland: It's great to see someone present actual evidence. The number of distinct editors in I/P has remained essentially the same for the past 8 years until it suddenly jumped up at the start of the present war. I wonder, is there a simple way to show the same data without the articles specifically related to the war? Removing articles created from Oct 7, 2023 onwards might be a good approximation. Don't spend time on it unless it is easy. Zerotalk 01:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor CaptainEek: I don't think ArbCom has an obligation to resolve the AE case. The fact is that there is nothing about it which AE could not handle perfectly well by itself. What you should do is send it back to AE (taking the cue from the practice of appellant courts sending cases back to the referring lower court). Meanwhile, no case has been made for PIA5. We have seen wild assertions without evidence, that's all, and it would be a mistake to take them at face value. Considering that there is a shooting war going on right now, ARBPIA is actually in better shape than one would expect. I've been editing in ARBPIA for over 22 years and for most of that time it was in worse shape than now. Zerotalk 04:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BilledMammal: In several places, such as here you have granted yourself the right to classify other editors as "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian". Please tell us how you classify yourself. Zerotalk 14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BilledMammal: Please add this RM to your table, and mark Iskandar323 as supporting "massacre" in the title. Sorry that it breaks the pattern. Readers should also note the selection bias in your table: even though many editors who supposedly only support "massacre" when the victims are Palestinians frequented Be'eri massacre, Kfar Aza massacre and Alumim massacre, none of them started an RM nor (on a cursory scan) questioned the use of "massacre". But this tacit acceptance of the facts is absent from your analysis. This is just one example of how your raw data tends to misrepresent reality. A proper analysis would need to compare reliable sources against !voting patterns. Zerotalk 04:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BilledMammal: Your response to my request is what I expected and thanks for confirming my suspicion. You are refusing to present information that might shed factual light on the subject when it disturbs the point you want to make. Another example is your refusal to separate main space from talk space in the other tables (example: only 17% of Selfstudier's edits this year were in mainspace, but who knows?). My greatest fear is that arbitrators will think that you are just a helpful provider of objective information when in fact you are one of the main area protagonists and your data must be critically examined with that in mind. Zerotalk 04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning pro-Israeli versus pro-Palestinian. Levivich deconstructs this division better than I could, and I wholeheartedly endorse his analysis. In terms of disputes, the most common division is between those who uncritically accept Israeli official versions and those who don't. Being critical of Israeli propaganda is completely different from being uncritical of Palestinian propaganda. Zerotalk 06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal invites me to describe my own pov. In the early days of WP when many editors had never heard of academic journals and very few of the best sources were online, I played a large part in making scholarly writing the gold standard in I/P topics. My philosophy is that articles should be based on the best sources available, regardless of which other sources technically pass RS. No editor other than me openly avoids citing either Ilan Pappe or Ephraim Karsh (academics at opposite ends of the pov spectrum). Incidentally, none of the articles directly related to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel or the subsequent Israeli response appear among my 1,500 most-edited articles, and Talk pages come it at number 412. No wonder I failed my Pro-Palestinian Activism exam. Zerotalk 06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments on this contributions table by Billed Mammal.
(a) The table combines talk page edits and article edits (BM: you should indicate that). The fraction of a user's edits that are in article space differs a lot and needs to be considered before judging an editor's habits, but this information is missing.
(b) Overall, 975 days are included. This means that even the largest edit count, that of Selfstudier, is only 15 edits per day (in fact effectively less, guessing 9–10, as Selfstudier often makes consecutive small edits). My count at #16 in the list is only 2.5 edits per day, which is remarkably few given that my watchlist of length 8,687 includes most ARBPIA articles).
(c) The top 20 contributors made 23% of the edits. I don't know how to check this, but I'm guessing that in most areas of similar size the top 20 contributors make a larger fraction of edits than this. Without this information, it cannot be concluded that a small cabal of editors dominate the area. Zerotalk 07:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre/Archive_2#Requested_move_8_October_2023, Iskandar323 actually proposed two titles with "massacre" in them. I'll leave it for readers to decide whether or not this is irrelevant to the claim that Iskandar323 only supports "massacre" when the victims are Palestinian. Zerotalk 09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.Hoyland: I calculated the 23% figure using the total of 431,132 that BM gave elsewhere. Using your total of 473,212 it would be 21% unless your way of counting also changes the top 20 counts. Also, the top contribution was 3.1%. Zerotalk 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Barkeep49: I'm sure BilledMammal's counts are more or less correct. Sean.hoyland is getting similar figures. What I object to is posting a mass of figures then claiming it proves things which it doesn't prove. Drawing conclusions from the data requires much more than a first impression. First it requires consideration of whether the apparent trends are really unreasonable — what should we expect the data to look like if the topic is in good shape? Second, it requires consideration of what information is available but not represented in the data and whether it changes the picture. Neither of those two things have been done. (Critique of statistical experiments is one of my professional specialties.) Zerotalk 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the motions

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom. This gives more discretion to admins without good reason. A better idea would be to encourage AE to forward individual appeals to ArbCom if they think ArbCom is better equiped to handle them.

Motion 2a: Word limits. This will be a gift to tag-teams, who will get 500 words per person. Also, this will prevent the most productive comments, which bring reliable sources and quote from them. This motion would effectively limit discussions to "you say, I say", when they should be "this reliable source says".

Motion 3: Involved participants. This is a dreadful idea. Practically nobody attends these discussions without a pov. The effect will be that newcomers summoned on off-wiki groups, who usually come with a minimum of knowledge, will have greater rights than dedicated editors who are expert on the subject. Also, there will be endless argument over who is "involved".

Motion 4: Enforced BRD. This could work if "substantive reason" requires a talk page explanation and not just a brief edit summary.

Zerotalk 07:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gripe. Instead of proposing changes that will make it harder to write articles and not solve any problems, our dear arbs should consult the regulars in the field who know what changes will be beneficial. Zerotalk 08:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Don't you think that it would be a good idea to say what problem a word limit is supposed to fix? None has been specified except bludgeoning, which is not one of the main problems of the area. Moreover, 1000 words is enough to bludgeon but not enough to present multiple reliable sources with quotations. Shouldn't you be encouraging proper discussion rather than restricting it? Can you at least specify that citations and quotations of reliable sources do not count in the limit? Otherwise your proposal is going to be a net negative. Zerotalk 01:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

There is a broad array of disruptive editing, POV pushing, long term edit wars, bludgeoning, incivility, and it all basically comes down to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've done my best to take care of all of the obvious cases that won't have to set aside a dozen hours of time to deal with, but much of the behavior is by editors with numerous prior warnings and sanctions but that topic banning, interaction banning, and blocking is not a simple matter. Most AE reports in the topic area involve behavior that is widespread among many parties, and picking out a single party for sanctioning and allowing other editors to continue the behavior isn't how enforcement should be working.

If Arbcom does wish to avoid a full case or "punt", as Barkeep puts it, there are a couple actions they can take to help out in the interim.

As for a party list, anyone who has made, been the subject of, or commented at any ARBPIA AE report since October 2023. The problem is widespread, and I think that is probably the most efficient way to generate a party list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, that part of BANPOL is just quoting Arbitration procedure, it can be changed by Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, the tldr is the original complaint was more or less about tag team edit warring, looking into it I saw that it was, in my view, broadly similar to much of the behavior widespread in the topic area, and wasn't terribly interested in making one-off sanctions. It's incredibly widespread, as well as other disruptive behavior, and AE isn't the place to address topic-wide issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, simple cases of misbehavior of newish accounts are fairly easily handled, as I think my ~80 AE sanctions this year show. The issue arises when we're asked to look into tag-team or long-term edit warring, as we were in this case, and even cursory investigation shows that a large number of editors are involved. You can't have edit warring or tag teaming with just one party or one side. AE is not equipped to handle, or at least they're is no appetite to handle, multiple long-term edit wars involving large numbers of editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this idea is wild, but how about anyone named in someone's evidence becomes a party? This isn't a court of law, and being a party doesn't mean there has to be findings or sanctions. Add that if you go over the standard word/diff limits you become a party and Bob's your uncle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, if you're trying to avoid a case, something like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Administrators encouraged to let us know what the committee wants done would be helpful.
Motion 3 is interesting, but it has to be clear if it is or is not a sanction, and if it should be applied to all regulars, or just over-engaged regulars.
I think there's already an enforced BRD sanction, but it only applies to the editor that first made the edit. This would be more effective in this topic, where the reverts are often between several editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I mean any guidance at all. Absent a case I want to know what Arbcom wants to see for enforcement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, we don't know what's going to pass yet, so we don't know that any tools are being added to our toolbox. I think a clear statement from Arbcom about the topic area would be handy if they're going to punt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, We've got a problem, apparently, with a bottomless well of newish accounts that make life difficult for good-faith editors, which is something that AE should be able to handle. You can see here that new(ish) accounts misbehaving are taken care of fairly promptly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 4 needs to define recent. There's already no policy that defines a revert which makes 1rr a pain. Let's not have any more vague rules to enforce. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, right now administrators cannot unilaterally place word limits on editors or discussions. Imposing such limits let's editors plan out what they'd like to say and what they choose to respond to, rather than be cut off mid-discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like a punt. The couple additional tools will be handy, but it doesn't address the broad array of disruptive editing, POV pushing, long term edit wars, bludgeoning, incivility, and it all basically comes down to WP:BATTLEGROUND where much of the behavior is by editors with numerous prior warnings and sanctions but that topic banning, interaction banning, and blocking is not a simple matter. None of the new tools help with the case that we referred here, which falls under AE reports in the topic area involve behavior that is widespread among many parties, and picking out a single party for sanctioning and allowing other editors to continue the behavior isn't how enforcement should be working. So what we're really doing is just letting things continue as they are.
I appreciate what Eek is saying, but keep in mind that there are even fewer active admins at AE and we've already said we can't handle this at AE. When commentary like If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. and And oh of course I cant take off my blinders to see how one group of editors is so obviously editing in bad faith, that they are propagandizing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. followed by There is zero evidence of battlegrounding on my part by an editor with years worth of warnings and a couple topic bans slides at AE with a finger wag it's pretty obvious that we're in the realm of shit no one wants to touch.(pinging Nableezy and Barkeep49 as I've mentioned their edits) Adding more tools isn't really going to work if no one wants to use the tools we have now, and even pinging the admins that issued a very final warning won't give feedback other than I don't disagree that it's casting aspersions. But is it battleground behavior worthy of a topic ban? I'm not sure it is, but I'm also not going to object to another admin deciding it is. (pinging Valereee)
So
  1. we still can't adequately investigate large and sprawling issues at AE
  2. there are very few admins doing any sort of AE work
  3. many of those doing that work are doing so intermittently
  4. no one wants to issue sanctions where there will be a shitshow
  5. any sanctions on a long-term editor will be a shitshow
  6. there are still more arbs than AE admins
  7. at least we can sanction new editors easily, I guess?
Anyway, I guess I'll see whoever is on the committee in a few months when it's even worse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, Arbcom can look at the totality of evidence when it comes to editor behavior, POV pushing, propagandizing, incivility, battleground editing, and all the rest and make a decision on what editors should and should not be editing in the topic area. AE is not suited to this purpose, and expecting individual admins to continue to deal with it alone isn't going to work. There are plenty of actions I could take if they wouldn't all involve hours of investigation to build the case, then further hours defending the action on appeal, along with taking the lumps that come with any such actions. Arbcom is uniquely positioned to share those particular shit sandwiches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I made a couple suggestions above. I think adding anyone who gives evidence or is named in evidence as a party would be fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

Re:L25: I didn't support moving this here because I was looking for an ArbCom only remedy as I felt we had whatever options we wanted on the table per the Contentious topic procedures A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. (emphasis added) I supported coming here because I think AE is ill-suited to a multi-party sprawling request like this. I actually think האופה is the least important party here in most ways and if the thread had stayed constrained to them a rough consensus would have been found. Instead, the discussion ballooned to potential misconduct by multiple other editors. For me the editors whose conduct needs examining would be BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Nableezy, and Selfstudier and I think ArbCom should review, and hopefully endorse, the work SFR has been doing as an uninvolved administrator given the concerns at least one of the parties (Nableezy) has raised about that work. Additionally, I think Levivich has been promoting, in this and some other recent AE reports, claims of misconduct based on tagteaming/edit warring that I personally don't find convincing (even if the same conduct does show other misconduct I do find convincing, namely a battleground mentality) but which ArbCom is better positioned to examine both because it can do so comprehensively, rather than in a series of one-off AE requests, and because of the authority ArbCom has to interpret existing policy and guidelines, [and] recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add one thing. If this ArbCom can't do the review of editor conduct well, and given that this is the committee with the biggest issues with activity among arbs of any 15-member arbcom in at least a decade it may decide it doesn't have the capacity to do this well, I'd suggest it find a way to "punt" that decision, instead focusing on whether or not it agrees with Levivich's interpetation of tag-teaming/edit warring. I say this based on comments members of the 2019 committee (a 13-member committee which is the only one to have a bigger activity problem than this committee) have made around their inability to give PIA4 and Antisemitism the full attention they deserved. In the latter case this then blew up into a much bigger case (WP:HJP). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 your "magical incantation" comment confuses me. Where did SFR say it was confusing how to refer? I've raised the issue that the mechanics of referring need work, but I don't think AE admins need to be told to bold vote something in order to find consensus to refer. All 4 uninvolved admins - with 4 uninvolved admins being a lot of admins these days - agreed to refer, and all 4 were (as best as I can tell) clear about what each other thought as opinions evolved, so it's not like it was a puzzle what was happening to the uninvolved admins and since other commenters gave feedback on whether or not to refer I don't think it was a puzzle to anyone else either. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 so you're saying the answer I gave is incorrect? If so mark me as surprised but glad for your clarification. I will eagerly await to see if a rough consensus of other arbitrators agree with you and presuming they do adjust my actions accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 thanks for that clarification. I want to understand this second parth. Am I correct that you're saying that if the 4 uninvolved administrators had all bolded refer to Arbcom no further action would have been needed as ArbCom (arbs/clerks) would do the rest of the steps? If so that is definitely easier than the answer I gave (close with a rough consensus to refer by an uninvolved admin, uninvolved admin files a case request here, and notifies all interested editors) and so I will happily take advantage of it going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 does what I wrote above accurately summarize your thinking? I want to make sure to know whether to adjust my actions for any future potential referrals. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Z1720. Sounds like your reading is the same as what I had previously thought. So then I'm still confused about what your initial comment was suggesting - there was never any confusion (that I could see) among the uninvolved admins about what the rough consensus was at a given moment (even if I was asking for some time for a bit to see if we could avoid this referral). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Levivich's statement: even beyond what SFR pointed out (BANPOL is quoting Arbitration Procedures), I think Levivich operates under a fundamental misconception about AE. Levivich seems to view AE as a community forum, where as I feel it is, as the name of Arbitration Enforcment suggests an Arbitration Committee forum. Further, the sanctions being handed out are being done under Arbitration Committee authority, not community authority. As such under the Arbitration and Consensus policies, the Committee can do what it feels best including mandating that all appeals in this topic area are heard by it rather than AE.
As to the substance of the SFR's suggestions, I'm not sure the committee wants to hear all appeals, but if it thinks SFR's idea is a good one I would suggest it limit itself to either or both of: appeals of recent sanctions (<3 or <6 months) and appeals stemming from an AE report (regardless of whether it is actioned by an inidivudal administrator or a rough consensus). I think giving uninvolved administrators the ability to use the tools available in Iranian politics to moderate discussions (not just RfCs) may or may not work, but would feel like something that could potentially be productive to stem issues without doing a full case and thus is perhaps worth trying. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@‌Nishidani: the Arbitation Committee will decide who the parties are. So it might be RTH's list, it might be a smaller group of that, or it could be part of that and others not included there. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with the observations made by both Trypto and Nableezy that the "sides" here don't neatly align on pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian. Beyond the nuances they both have offered, I have seen a definite "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more singularly focused Wikipedian" divide (for instance SFR has pointed out that Levivich's definition of tag-teaming could apply to some of former group but is only being applied against the latter group). This complexity is why I repeat my concern about ArbCom accepting a case unless it feels it truly has the capacity/ability to do it just because a lot of people (me included) are saying the status quo isn't working. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree: I think the fact that the thread sprawled in the way it did despite the absence of האופה is exactly why the referral is here. There became so many other editors conduct to consider - not just in tag teaming but in the AE thread itself - that it became beyond what AE can handle well in its format. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I want to make sure that ArbCom is aware of the highly related AN thread about RTH's INVOLVEMENT in this topic area. 2) To the extent that Levivich's version of what happened at AE is true, I don't think that argues against a case; it supports the idea that thetopic area needs to be examined, not just having a single complaint against a now inactive editor resolved. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more note: if ArbCom does decide to just adjudicate the AE report for האופה it should also adjudicate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PeleYoetz which was closed as moot after this ARCA referral. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier: I agree that If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right now is true. If no one else other than Levivich had replied, some quorum of admin would have been able to reach consensus on האופה. The fact that the replies that actually happened split the focus in a way that AE is ill-equipped to handle is why I ultimately (if reluctantly) agreed we should refer the case here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I absolutely think you should be able to present evidence about admin conduct in this topic area. Knowing the concerns you and some others had is why I included SFR in my list of potential parties. And I think it's reasonable to say something like "after that initial post by SFR there was no choice but for a lot of other people to reply which is why that thread sprawled and PeleYoetz" didn't. But I stand by my agreeing with Selfstudier that If no-one else had replied in the referred case, none of us would be here right now. Selfstudier and I draw different conclusions about that statement we agree on and the Arbs can decide which conclusion they agree with as it's ultimately up to them. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mithcell: I think there are in the AE thread referring this here allegations that a particular editor is behaving tendentiously, namely BilledMammal, Nableezy, and Selfstudier (and maybe also Levivich?). I think some of these allegations are stronger than others but those allegations are 100% part of why this case was referred to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate and support Trypto's scope, though I'd suggest that a narrower party list is appropriate. I would also note that, today, we've had an editor present evidence right here about the topic area and multiple others accuse that editor of lying about the evidence. This suggests three possibilities to me: the editor made up/manipulated evidence, the people accusing that editor of lying are casting personal attacks, or there is such bad faith among topic area editors that honest mistakes/normal editorial choices while summarizing information is seen as being done with malevolent intent. In theory ArbCom is best positioned to figure out which of these things is true in this and several other similar accusations. And if ArbCom decides they can't (or don't have capacity to stay on top of this kind of conduct during a case), I hope they consider an intermediary step until ArbCom would have the capacity to do this. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto: I think determining who should be party to an ArbCom case based on who happened to show up to an AE thread isn't the right way to determine a party list. The party list I gave might be too small but equally discouraging participation at AE because you might become party to a case when there is no accusation you've done anything wrong isn't going to help this topic area either, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: I feel like you're saying we disagree (for the 2nd time here) but I don't think we do? If BilledMammal is presenting misleading evidence that is important to know and act on, especially if that evidence is intentionally misleading. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to bring to ArbCom's attention this message from Levivich to BilledMammal about this ongoing AE report. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think SFR's AA3 motion would be counter productive - a real "the beatings will continue until morale improves" type of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish is any comment needed? They're giving new tools in response to the problems brought forward. Presumably the idea is that AE and individual admins start using those tools? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that if ArbCom feels like they have enough information to make a clear statement other than "we don't see a problem" they should just take action themselves rather than telling AE admin how to do it. I think the potential tools is a far better alternative to any statement they might pass in lieu of a case (as opposed to at the end of a case where I think such statements can be genuinely useful). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ArbCom considers an appropriate response I'll throw out a potentially bad idea. Jeske's suggestion that there could be separate "topic area" and "editor conduct" cases and my suggestion of a delayed start to a case could be combined. So perhaps the topic area happens now and that could inform both tools (which might solve certain editor issues) and parties to a future editor conduct case. Either case could also allow for an examination of the pieces only arbcom can handle because of their offwiki nature (including what was oversighted during this request). That said some kind of motions along the lines of what Harry offers could be worth a try, as could a narrower case that Aoidh proposes (though I think the odds of success are slimmer here because disruption truly is more widespread than just the "power users" who show up at places like AE). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 (and anyone else watching) I think at this point there are no bad ideas. Part of my rationale for proposing the motions was to see if they sparked any better ideas. Separate cases might be worth thinking more about. How would we structure a general case about the topic area to avoid it becoming a mud-slinging contest? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom commits to not sanctioning editor conduct in such a case (except for conduct during the case) would be my most serious suggestion. In more of a brainstorming mode, somehow structure evidence slightly differently (post themes - source manipulation, edit warrning, etc and allow submissions for that them), you could do summary style again (would not recommend given how much time it took but it is a way and I think it accomplished the goal you're concerned about here) I haven't reread the past split case @Jéské Couriano points out recently so there might be other ideas to glean from reading those (and reading what the arbcom at the time wrote about them privately). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: and @Sean.hoyland: one of the reasons I requested CU back was to help in this topic area. But the CU policy has a globally established floor (one which is monitored by the Ombuds who report directly to the Board of the WMF which underscores how seriously its taken). Unlike most global policies where enwiki has far stricter rules, for CU (and OS) I think we're already operating close to, if not at, the floor. So if there are articulable reasons that justify CU it can be done - as I did here - but "make it easier to run CU" isn't something ArbCom or even enwiki can decide. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Harry has asked for feedback from AE admin, I'd say if the committee thinks it can do this well a case would be worthwhile. If for whatever reason the committee doesn't think that for, and I could think of 3 or 4 such reasons, we're better off trying the motions for now. Especially because one of them (the appeals to ArbCom) is likely to give arbs a better understanding of some of the issues and might make a future case more productive. Though I think many of those issues can be seen in this case request as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Nableezy's comment following the close of an SPI by myself and Izno, I actually reach a different conclusion. This isn't the first time LTAs have been blamed for everything ill in a topic area. The last time I was such an instance was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision, which not coincidentally includes one of the LTAs active in this area as well. The devestating impact Icewhiz and other LTAs have had on editors and on the project cannot be stated often enough. Doing my part to combat that was a substantial reason I asked for CU back and it's why I invested most of the limited time I had for Wikipedia yesterday into this matter. I also think it important to note that I was only willing to say it's possilikely that the socks were Icewhiz; it wasn't worth my time to confirm it when I could, with much less time, say that they connected to each other and block them with basically the same result. In the context of a case perhaps it's worth ArbCom's time to do that deeper investigation. Beyond all that, I bring up the WWII case because I think the devastating impact of LTAs sometimes makes it harder to focus on non-LTA issues, such as in this incident (currently at AE). Given that we are now more than 2 months closer to the end of the year than when this was first filed I will renew my suggestion that ArbCom open the case and suspend it until sometime in mid-January. This would then let potential candidates know something that they will be facing and to act accordingly in making a decision (the net of which I suspect is an increased capacity for a case which would be a heavy lift). Absent that I think ArbCom should just close this down with the passed motions and see what happens next. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theleekycauldron

@L235: I agree with Barkeep that this should be a full case. But Red-tailed hawk is right on his list of parties – this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground that AE hasn't been able to resolve. Not because of a lack of authority, but because of the complexity of the case combined with the standard unblockables problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: i think it's pretty clear looking at the chart that the number of new editors spiked because of the war (given that it spiked last october). i don't think you can claim from that chart alone what the impact of the regulars has been; it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is lower than it was the day before the war began. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeleYoetz

Statement by TarnishedPath

I understand that the list of participants is everyone who was involved in a particular AE discussion or who was mentioned in that discussion. My editing in the topic area is limited, with a limited number of articles on my watchlist. I don't intend on following this closely. If my participation is desired at any point please ping me, presuming the case goes ahead. TarnishedPathtalk 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone has seen this article at Jewish News Syndicate which states that "Blake Flayton, a vocal commentator on Jewish and Israeli issues, responded to the post, calling the changes “egregious” and urging someone with expertise to edit the page to reflect what he considers to be a more accurate portrayal". When we are faced with this sort of off-wiki canvassing is it any surprise that there's some level of disruption to the topic area? TarnishedPathtalk 13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the motions (TarnishedPath)

To me it seems that Motion 3: Involved participants may have the effect of increasing the amount of off-wiki canvassing and use of socks that already occurs in this topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 03:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek, I'd suggest that definition of "recent" is a long way from the community understanding and if implemented would give rise to increased edit warring both at the 1RR level and at the 3RR level. TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek, I've seen editors brought before AE where part of the evidence involved reverts to other edits well over a 24 hours old. So from what I've seen the idea of recent is older than 24 hours. I don't have an answer on what I think should be a good threshold for what "recent" is, however I could foresee a lot of problems if it was defined as short as 24 hours. TarnishedPathtalk 00:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I object to being hauled into this artificial mess (caused by an innovation in reading that defines all reverts as identical behaviourally irrespective of contexts, so if I revert an unfactual or unsourced piece of WP:OR, I immediately am, like the abusive, often new, editor, engaged in a revert war and, if the abusive editor persists, anyone else who restores the accurate text is tagteaming with me. Crazy). I have been repeatedly reported over the last year, and invariably the cases were dismissed. They were frivolous, but ‘there is no smoke without fire’ psychological atmosphere created by this repetitive questioning of my policy-adherence and good faith, indeed, precisely because AE rejected these piddling reports, the claim emerges that editors like me are ‘untouchable’ (Occam's razor. When a theory fails, those convinced of it invent another theory (Untouchables here) to account for why it was not accepted, etc.). The result here is a series of intemperate variations of a boilerplate meme chanted about the I/P area, which I have heard for a dozen years used of individual editors but now used of a group, first targeted by several off-wiki sites and now pushed as a reality which slipped past our monitoring for 20 years. And it is just an unsubstantiated opinion, esp. from editors I’ve almost never seen here, and, surprisingly seems to be getting some traction.

Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment (The IP area is notorious for the huge academic industry of explanation that has grown up around it, and unless you read this material, and put aside using newspaper current events sourcing as the default RS, you are not going to grasp anything there for encyclopedic ends. Who would be so stupid, if their intention was to 'create a toxic battleground', spend decades reading hundreds of books and scholarly articles, when they could simply do what hundreds of SPA and socks do, rack up 500 edits and then, without losing time opening a book, and if caught out, sock, resock, and resock again, in order to sock the 'regular' editors with their opinions, and try to provoke them so they may garner evidence for destroying them at AE?). There is no evidence here, none, as far as I can see, but no doubt some will think, ‘ah, but they’ll find the missing proof for these claims when Arbcom gets to work’. And why should it work on such an outburst of unproven grievances? As I noted on my page, there is a very simple test to find evidence for this hypothesis of a conspiracy (against Israel, that is the tacit innuendo in those complaints above)/bullishly dominating control over IP articles by a 'pro-Palestinian' faction that has putatively consolidated itself as the power to reckon with in the area. Use your wiki tools and elicit confirmation of this bias by examining the list of 100 new IP articles created since 7 October (SFR's starting point). Of the hundreds of editors active over them, show that a handful of the 'regulars' has bludgeoned, intimated, harassed, been uncivil across the board, and secured their 'pro-Pal POV'. If you can't then, all we have here is the appearance of blathering highly personalized grudges. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billed Mammal. Re this set of diffs, They are not valid evidence for what you claim for a very simple linguistic reason. 'Severe bias' and 'bias' are not interchangeable, the adjectival qualifier makes all the difference. All newspapers have bias, like humans. 'Severe bias' in a newspaper/organization is what makes it unacceptable, as distinct from others.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BilledMammal. I'm sorry, but language and grammar are merciless in these things (and the fact that such niceties are missed so often is one reason reading ANI/AE discussions is, certainly for me, so painful -I was in part permabanned because one admin could not understand irony, though everyone else saw the amicable comedy of my, to him alone, 'aggressively' 'uncivil'/abusive remark). You are simply wrong. If you have played lawn bowls, then grasping whether the ball you are drawing has a wide or narrow bias is fundamental to mastering the art. The whole point of RSN deliberations, and you engage in them often, is to distinguish between narrow and wide bias in newspapers. A narrow bias doesn't imperil the general reliability of a source: a wide bias can lead to deprecation. I guess now, having told you you are flat-out wrong, I have now produced a diff that can be cited in just one more WP:CIVIL suit to be filed against me in the future:):(Nishidani (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Huldra thanks indeed for that link I'd never seen this data before, because I don't know how to consult files that log stuff on wiki.Nishidani (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester. Surely you shouldn't take exception to a somewhat playful implication you were a 'cat'. Your presence is very rare in the IP area and your remarks about sealioning and 'the usual suspects' (people like myself) might give the impression of a detached view by an experienced admin. Not quite true. You admitted 17 years ago that you used your admin tools to unblock an Israeli editor for a 3R infraction because, offline he contacted you and convinced you he was justified in breaking the rule. You didn't even check to see if his wild offline claims (presumably about me) were correct. ([37],[38], [39] [40], [41]). When I read your first post here I remembered that contretemps. I never reported it as a misuse of admin tools, and I never hold grudges. But I do remember things, and took your generalization as coming from someone 'involved' in the topic area. Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swatjester re my putative 'atrocious behavior within this topic area'. You don't have to believe me when I say I don't hold grudges. But I have by all accounts a good memory. If someone out of the blue, whom I haven't seen around for 17 years, implies that I am one of the 'usual suspects', a sealioning bludgeoner, then recalling the earlier episode where they abused their admin tools and damaged my bona fides is more than fair. I was a newbie at that time (that shows in my remarks there), and was almost driven off by the arbitrary punitive measures made against me. I don't hold grudges because I made no formal complaint, which might have damaged you, and I have almost never had recourse, on principle, to making ANI/AE reports to settle disputes by getting someone who disagrees with me banned, a practice that is of chronic here, one used against me with unusual frequency. I exercise care in the words I use. 'atrocious' per Merriam-Webster means 'extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel: barbaric.' You're entitled to that view of me as someone displaying exceptional brutality and cruelty on wikipedia. But you should quietly ask yourself, because I don't report insults, how that squares with the content evidence of my creation of 1,000 plus articles as varied as Kaifeng Jews, Gadubanud, Joseph's Tomb and Irvin Leigh Matus.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swatjester That incident occurred 17 years ago, when I was new to wikipedia, and, faced with an inexplicable administrative punishment (technically) I made the inferences one can see. I wouldn't do that now. What you don't deny is the gravamen of those two incidents (a) you used your administrative tools to unblock a sanctioned Israeli user after he talked to you privately (invisibly, without even examining the relevant pages where he broke 3R to verify his narrative) and (b) denied my own unblock request when, given the circumstances, you should have stayed out of this and left the decision to any other admin who was uninvolved. I gave all the relevant links, to allow editors to draw their own conclusions. Archaeologists of wiki disputes can judge for themselves. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sean.hoyland. Thanks Sean. That is precisely the kind of empirical data we desperately need to as a work basis to get out of the suggestive/insinuating/subjective gossip mode often prevailing on wiki when it deliberates on core issues like this.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CaptainEek. You write:

The world's mostmost intractable problem continues to be our most intractable problem.

It is not an intractable problem on wikipedia, despite incessant rumour-mongering. It is, an enduring premise of mine, politically intractable, but not descriptively so, taking in both an Israel (semi-)official POV and the scholarship, to the end of achieving NPOV. To the contrary. We can draw on one of the richest WP:RS highbar resource bases existing, for the simple reason that:-

The Israel-Palestine issue has a strong claim to be the most closely studied conflict on earth. 'Voluminous' does not even begin to capture the sheer quantity of the material about it'.(Ian Black, Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017, Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-00443-2 p.8 )

A very large number of positions assumed to be contentious here are not so in that scholarly literature, where a large consensus on the historical realities exists. These however are relentlessly challenged by editors who don't care much for the ivory tower, but care deeply about a country to which they feel a profound emotional attachment (again, understandably, but love of country is not coterminous with love of any one particular government and/or its worldviews). To respin the disputes that arise as an irremediable clash between nationalist POVs is nonsense, but that is the temptation here. And, if this goes to ARBPIA5, the outcome is predictable. There will be two parties identified (regulars and nationalists/socks), and a number from each will be sanctioned, for wikipedia must not give the impression, particularly under the pressures over the last year, of siding with one 'side' or t'other. And why have we got to this? Because an innonative reading, impeccably 'behaviouralist' now takes all reverts, regardless of the rationales, to be on the same footing, and any series of reverts by different editors, regardless of the talk page or the RS literature (the contexts), as evidence of mutual tag-teaming. of course, there will also be a further tightening of the screws on 'behaviour', since everything else is considered a 'content issue' where it is presumed there are a variety of POVs that are, in any case, not up to admins to read up on or make judgments about. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, seconding Zero, I really would like to see a minimum of evidence that the place has deteriorated to the point of requiring executive re-examination. What evidence we have is that there has been a massive investment of editors, a great many new, creating and working hundreds of articles since Oct.7. Personal experience is risible as evidence, but it was hell for the first decade of my working here, and I don't think growing senility accounts for my impression that over the last several years much of that heat has been significantly lowered, thanks to ARBPIA3. The only change I have witnessed is the sharp rise in newly registered accounts that behave oddly - my list has over a score, since Oct.7. That issue was what Levivich tried to address, and his reports somehow got transformed into assertions that they weren't the problem, the 'regulars' were, all based on hearsay circulating for at least a decade, hearsay drummed up by new off-wiki attack sites with a clear nationalist brief to go for wiki's IP jugular.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep. Just out of curiosity, if Arbcom opens a case, who are the editors whose behaviour is to be examined. The list given by Red-tailed hawk, or is it larger? I say that because there is a massive imbalance in the people singled out, according to the usual perceptions of the IP area's POV-stand-off.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to the requested 'pro-Pal POV', that is inane language. I could give a long essay on the roots of my general outlook, from family tales of Irish dispossession (the genocidal consequences of (a) Cromwell's conquest (b) and the effect of the the great famine on our emigration to Australia; to the unusual circumstances of having a father and mother each with a very odd, in a racist Australian world, tradition of sympathy for Zulus and aborigines; to having a Downie as our youngest sister, to an adolescent reading of Holocaust memoirs; to reading Tsepon Shakabpa's political history of Tibet at 17; to specializing academically in the concepts of nationalist exceptionalism -all underdog stories and therefore a sense that any judgment must be grounded in universalist principles or logic. When I started reading wiki IP articles, Palestinian history was absent from most (so I rewrote Hebron) - there was a bias to just an israeli narrative of Jewish traditions there. So 'pro-Pal' is risible. Indeed, if I have an intellectual challenge reflected in my work here, it is to read to the end of trying to grasp how the universalism of the haskalah could morph into the nationalism of modern Israel, In that sense, Palestinians are incidental, to a much broader point-of-view. And lastly, there was this vast disparity between the cusp of scholarship and mainstream reportage, and editors were basically drawing on the latter, which is no way to write anything encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Billed Mammal.

looking at the top 20 editors at activity statistics, I believe that 13, collectively making 75,383 edits to the topic area since 2022, generally align with a pro-Palestinian position. I believe two, collectively making 5,832 edits, generally align with a pro-Israeli position.

Look at it from another set of angles. What is the proportion of Palestinian (zero) vs (pro-)Israeli/Jewish editors in the IP area, for example? Or what is the proportion of bias in the mainstream sources we almost invariable regard as core RS. E.g.'33,000 news articles from 1987-1993 and 2000-2005 the article shows that anti-Palestinian bias persisted disproportionately in the NYT during both periods and, in fact, worsened from the First Intifada to the Second.' (Holly M Jackson, New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas Media, War & Conflict Volume 17, Issue 1 pp. 116-135)
There is an extensive literature on this, not well covered in Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and sometimes it may be quite disconcerting for those whose general information on the conflict comes from TV and mainstream newspapers to find that there is another, equally valid, perspective on events, and we must balance them for NPOV. There is absolutely no problem in finding massive coverage of events from a pro-Israeli perspective, but you have to frequently go to the scholarship to see the other side. And much of that scholarship comes from places like TAU and diaspora Jewish scholars (many also Zionist). 'Pro-Palestinian' implies 'anti-Israel' and that is why the term is totally unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkon. Whatever the outcome, I think this lengthy exchange of views, explorations of so many standard terms used to (mis)characterize what goes on in the putatively 'toxic' IP area, has been very useful. Instead of the intrinsic litigiousness of standard AE/ANI reports, this has been a productive (?hmm many will think TLDR perhaps) exploration in civilised dialogue, yeah with the odd edge of irritation or annoyance showing through, but that's picayune compared to the overall tone, of issues that we've never had quite the time to look into. The emergence of toolkit algorithmically generated evidence also was refreshing, an attempt, even if in my view, not quite as successful as one would like, to get a minimal empirical handle on what often is read as mere opinionizing. The rules of etiquette and strict topic focus all too often hinder discussions of what is really on editors' mind, before a community and its arbiters, and it is all to the good that we have been afforded this opportunity.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terms just means that the editor sympathizes with that side more than the other.

Good grief. What on earth has sympathizing with a 'side', presumably either collectively 'Israelis' or 'Palestinians' got to do with it. It's not a football match where people look on, 'rooting for' (that is extremely vulgar in Australia, where we say 'barrack') our side, and, in doing so, boo the other. Sympathy when partisan is tribal, and modernity teaches us that, though Hillel the Elder put it superbly in his dictum:'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn,' which we have now in the form, 'Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.' To empathize along ethnic lines is to sap the very principle that underwrites this as a human virtue. So, what befell Jewish israelis in the kibbutzim, and the fate of the hostages elicits the same pain as one should feel at what befalls Palestinians. I admit that there are very strong drifts in representation which retribalize our principles, demanding that we showcase the tragedy of Israeli hostages, each with a photo and lifestory, while the parallel hostage-taking of Palestinians ( of the 9,170 arrested roughly 4000 are in administrative detention, i.e. held without trial, lawyers or due process, and probably without a skerrick of evidence like Khalida Jarrar) is systematically ignored. To state that, given the disparity, is not to espouse a pro-Palestinian perspective. It is simply to insist that our civilization in its laws and ethical principles commends our sympathies to go out to whoever suffers, regardless of the mean divisions of politics and ethnicity.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

today, we've had an editor present evidence right here about the topic area and multiple others accuse that editor of lying about the evidence.Barkeep49

Translation: Billed Mammal presented a very abstract set of charts, and multiple editors stated that BM was lying about the evidence in them.

Your three interpretations are (BM) lied, by falsifying the facts; (b) that multiple editors replied by making personal attacks; (c) that bad faith is so deep that honest mistakes/normal editorial choices in summarizing information are read between the lines as malevolent.

I find that extraordinary, a wild caricature and misreading of several distinct reactions to BM’s chart. Perhaps that simply because I can't remember reading anything in a very long thread that might support it. Other than Nableezy’s use of the term ‘lying/dishonest’ – for which he said he would produce evidence if asked by ARBCOM, who are the multiple editors dismissing BM’s evidence as mendacious, as opposed to unconvincing, unfalsifiable, ergo to be interpreted rather than taken for granted as proof, of whatever?

It would take a very long time to work one’s way through that chart. Tomorrow I will be travelling for a month, so I won't be participating in the Arbcom deliberations, if they take place. But in a quick check in the little time I've had, I found that BM’s conclusion that there were only 2 ‘pro-Israeli’ editors as opposed to 13 aligning with a ‘pro-Palestinian’ position hard to reconcile with evidence on his chart of which makes him the lowest (10%) IP contributor - though he is the most familiar name to me on that list, - when it includes User:Marokwitz (72%); User:Tombah (53% permabanned); User:Drsmoo (48%); User:Personisinsterest (49%); User:Dovidroth (39% banned from IP);User:Mistamystery (70%, low edit count);User:XDanielx (89%);User:Eladkarmel (43%), User:האופה (43% low edit count); User:רמרום (76%, low edit count); User:טבעת-זרם (89% low edit count); User:Wagtail66, low edit count; User:Kentucky Rain24 (56%, NoCal100 sock); User:The Mountain of Eden (low edit count); User:Afdshah (63%) low editaccount; User:Bolter21 (69%); User:Greyshark09 (57% few edits); User:Onlineone22 low edit count; User:Izzy Borden, sock); User:Seggallion (sock) , to mention a few of the names I mostly recognize as coming under that kind of general category.But then, this kind of analysis is way out of my field of competence.Nishidani (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@*Barkeep. I had the distinct impression the line I quoted summed up (a) BM giving empirical evidence and (b) being attacked for doing so by several editors. My impression was that BM answered my solicitation for such evidence (on another page), came up with his charts and was immediately thanked by sean.hoyland and myself. Then Hoyland, Zero, with a professional competence in these things, questioned aspects of the chart, or the inferences BM drew from them as did SashiRolls. This was absolutely normal, consensual discussion. The only blip was Nableezy being upset at the way BM's chart distorted his comments. BM and Nableezy often collaborate and at times get annoyed at each other, but that is not 'multiple editors' getting at BM. What has been suggested is that his particular modelling of the data produces the kind of result he'd be comfortable with, and that is a point very frequently made of papers in population genetics and other fields. Confirmation bias works everywhere, but in no way implies duplicity.* Best Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the query was twice raised with Levivich, the suggestion of using the Bible re Zionism was not shouted down, as implied, with injury to the editor making that proposal. The technical point is that such primary resources should be, where necessary filtered through pertinent high quality RS on Zionism. It would also help if commentators remembered that Zionism was proposed by someone unfamiliar with Judaism and Hebrew, and that the pronounced secular cast of the foundational movement horrified a large majority of orthodox Jews at that time. The bible arguably had a greater impact on the antisemitic Arthur Balfour's enabling of Zionism that it did on the founding fathers. Part of the ongoing problems in this area is reading back into the past, which is another country, perceptions and notions that consolidated themselves only much later.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should not feel that doing so means crossing a red line if they cite sources on a banned list, or that if they stray from say the Journal of Palestine Studies on matters relative to 1948 that they are going to be topic-banned

Whatever the arrangements of the outcome, could some admin kindly write a short page (ARBPIA5 for dummies) so that people like myself who know little of these endless policy finesses can get their distracted heads around the practical results, with a few hypothetical examples illustrating what not to do, other than what one was obliged to avoid doing earlier? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[email protected] noticed this. A bit of ballistically mocking caricature is perhaps needed to lighten up the strange gloominess here. Since when has that journal, or its august Israeli counterpart, Israel Studies, counted much much generally for editors here, despite the efforts of a handful of contributors who advocate the use of both?(there is by the way quite a lot of overlap in many of their respective articles)Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ARBPIA5. This is a hunch based on the ARBPIA1 case that had me permabanned in, was it, 2009. This invites the temptation to lay a bet on probable outcomes. Mine is that an equal number from the shortlist, 2 for 2, will be sanctioned, to underline the impartiality of judgment regarding the 'regulars', and the relatively new or resurfaced accounts (of which I have a list of over 50 with the same POV, all active in the last few months in the IP area). The 'balance' will totally ignore the massive discrepancy in the numbers involved. I hope I'm wrong, but this is my instinctive response to CaptainEek's extraordinarily dramatic language in their most recent comment. And all this will occur with the best of good faith and will, because the real underlying issues cannot be addressed within wiki terms, so perfect conduct criteria will as usual rule supreme.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify with an anecdote why I am sceptical about the expectation that a functional fix to these issues can by the nature of our traditional approach achieve anything but damage. It's one that comes to mind whenever I'm dragged into these huge timewasting exercises. I first heard my father, a well-loved city figure, conservative, impeccably attentive to good form on any occasion, erupt with an angry 'Ah, for fuck's sake!!!,' when I was 14. A car swerved from behind us, trundling along at a moderate speed, overpassed and cut back in ahead of us just before the intersection of Burke Rd and Whitehorse Rd in Hawthorn. He had to brake hard to avoid a collision with the red-haired lout. Admins are like traffic cops, but the rules would say, adopting this simile, that two people were at fault: the larriken in his careering path overtaking us to gain a few seconds' edge, and my father for his incivility, esp. serious because the outburst occurred in the presence of impressionable boys. Both would be fined, as if cause and effect had nothing to do with, at least, my father's response. Worse still, had the speeder in the incident stopped to complain to a cop that he'd been yelled at abusively, my father, in an analogous wikipedia scenario, would have been proven guilty on his own admission and, were he to say, 'but the other chap caused me to lose my temper', he would be told, 'that is a separate issue. And you may take it up by opening a case for sanctions against that driver, where his behaviour will be examined.'
All technical infractions are not only placed on a par, but considered as putting the flow of edits at dire peril. It's not the meticulous traffic code memorizer and applier who is at fault: the lack of commonsense discretion in reading what constitutes a systemic 'danger' to wikipedia is. The aim of an encyclopedia is to get jobs done (articles) in a worksite where swarms of gaming slackers and urgently hyperactive kibitzers vie with people who, beyond their own personal views, have been trained long at a tech school, and know how to fix things and if they don't they stop work and consult experts or go to a library, to mug up on the needed know-how, and then return to the job to apply the remedy). Though favours are not permitted I'd personally appreciate a slight delay at the ARBPIA5 Tyburn Tree proceedings until I totter over the 100,000 edits threshold, which should occur in little more than a month or so.(:-) Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Arbcom can look at the totality of evidence when it comes to editor behavior, POV pushing, propagandizing, incivility, battleground editing, and all the rest and make a decision on what editors should and should not be editing in the topic area. . . (b) There are plenty of actions I could take if they wouldn't all involve hours of investigation to build the case
SFR. Anyonw can appreciate the high seriousness and intense scruple exercised by your extremely close work in the IP area. But if Arbcom or any other institution outside of God can 'look at the totality of the evidence' to make judgments about the elements that follow, I'll be a monkey's uncle, if only because of all those involved you are looking at over 500,000 contributions. Almost everything boils down to the single 'incivility' issue. As for hours spent, yes, but remember, just one poor edit involving the inclusion of bad sourcing, then vigorously defended on the talk page, can lead other serious editors, all the scumbags deplored in so many frivolous and (no doubt unintendedly) offensive characterizations in this massive conversation, to several hours of background reading just to get the text secured in excellent sourcing. Any one does that, day in, day out, for years, only to be told that one has an infractive 'battle-ground' 'POV-pushing' 'propagandizing' attitude. And I'm not speaking for myself here. The evidence mill here takes no account of the vast evidence about how 'regular' editors go to great lengths with huge expenditures in personal time to master the literature. All that is looked at is the niceties of their interactions with a mother-lode of new editors who show no such commitment, but an enormous earnestness.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DMH223344

Can someone explain to me what this is all about? Specifically, how is this AE related to the previously closed one? And what am I being asked to do here?

Statement by M.Bitton

Statement by Buidhe

I really don't want to be involved in this business, but while there is a lot of suboptimal behavior in this topic area, it amazes me some of what can be described as an "edit war" or sanctionable conduct. If these standards were enforced across the board to all editors regardless of their content contributions and all topic areas, I'm quite convinced that there would not be much of an encyclopedia. I realize that Arbcom tries to clinically separate content and conduct, but IMO one should not lose sight of the goal of the entire project. And while productive, good faith editors can be driven away from contributing due to battleground behavior and general nastiness, it's also true that they can be driven away by excessive rules and (the fear of) overzealous ban-hammers. I do believe that editors who actually work on creating an encyclopedia should be distinguished from people who just show up to revert or argue on talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I saw several reports at AE that mentioned tag-teaming as a concern. I did not find anything actionable in the ones I investigated, but I agree with BK49 above that AE is less well-placed to investigate a sprawling multi-party dispute where the behavior of multiple editors may be of concern, than the behavior of a single editor. So I believe ARBCOM should look into this. In doing so, however, I encourage ARBCOM not to narrowly constrain which editors' behavior will be considered. AE is able to deal with the behavior of single editors. What ARBCOM needs to look at is whether the outcome of editors working together is actionably disruptive where any individual's actions in isolation may not be. I also encourage ARBCOM not to take a narrow view of what constitutes conduct. Mis-representing a source is, in my view, just as bad - and possibly worse for Wikipedia's long-term credibility - than any civility issue. It shouldn't be ignored just because it is easier to police language, though I am in no way suggesting that the expectations for collegial language be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I generally avoid editing in this topic area, and my involvement in it has been fairly minimal. But the one instance when I did get involved with it ([42]), led me to find the editing environment disturbingly toxic, and not due to some simple problem with a small number of easily identified editors. Rather, it felt like a fairly large number of experienced editors, together, were acting in a way inconsistent with a CTOP subject. That strikes me as something that AE is poorly equipped to deal with. And it fits exactly with the concept that ArbCom should accept cases where the community has tried, but been unsuccessful, to resolve. So I recommend that ArbCom accept this case, and do so with a large number of named parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Added after some other editors have kindly said that they agree with me; I don't know if they will agree with what follows.) ArbCom should know that the problems with "the usual suspects" that cannot be handled by AE generally do not fall along the expected POV fault-lines of Israeli versus Palestinian POVs, or antisemitism or Islamophobia. (I'm sure there are POV pushers like that, but they can be handled at AE.) If anything, there's a divide between different lines of Jewish thought, with the most problematic editors favoring WP:RS-compliant scholarly work by largely-Jewish academics, but doing so with a massive-scale disregard for the ArbCom principle of WP:BRIE, and some other editors (sometimes more crudely) finding such source material to be contrary to popular political opinion. In my experience, getting caught in the middle of that can be quite unpleasant. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About what ToBeFree said, I suspect that the information that would be made available to ArbCom via the case request page would look incredibly similar to what you already have here, so it would just be a bureaucratic waste of time to start over from scratch. And as for any aspersions that everyone should just be removed from the topic area, that's what the Evidence phase of a case is supposed to correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that: Although numerous editors are asking where the evidence is, for starting a full case with multiple parties, the correct answer is that evidence will be presented, and critically evaluated for whether it is valid or not, on the Evidence page of the case. ArbCom should make it clear that being listed as a named party is not a predetermination of guilt, something that perhaps will be more important here than in many other cases. You have multiple AE admins telling you that a full case with multiple parties is needed, and they have given you a reasonable list of potential parties (including admins who are well-positioned to give useful evidence). This is not the time to get stuck on quasi-legalistic procedural details. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding now to Harry Mitchell's comment, I'm worried that ArbCom is starting to over-think this. Focus on conduct, not on which sources are definitive. Have an Evidence page. Editors will either provide evidence of misconduct, or they won't, and ArbCom can tell the difference. You've got enough people telling you here that there are conduct problems that have overwhelmed AE that you can be confident that it won't just be a fishing expedition, but it would just result in ongoing disruption if ArbCom punts for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish This would be fine, but it doesn't do anything about the topic area in general, and I'm not convinced that AE can't handle that. Possibly not as drive-by allegations in a thread about another editor, but if a separate complaint is filed with clear evidence on each editor for admins to evaluate, I have confidence that credible complaints will result in action and vexatious ones will be rejected. But if admins would prefer to refer a complaint against a specific editor to ArbCom, I'd be happy to hear that case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to convince ArbCom to do is about fixing the topic area in general. Among the multiple impasses in the discussion here on this request page is that AE admins are telling ArbCom that AE is not able to handle it, and you and maybe some other Arbs are saying the opposite. Handing the problem back to AE with an admonition to do it better is what will do nothing about the topic area. From my limited experience, bringing a case about one editor at a time to AE results in walls of text that include attempts to demonize the editor who first filed the AE report. After one such experience, I gave up on AE for this topic area, and I gave up on trying to edit in this topic area. (And I know better than to name names here on this request page, as opposed to on an eventual Evidence page.)
I agree with you that AE can handle stuff like sockfarms and newish accounts that POV-push.
I can appreciate that ArbCom must find it baffling that so many editors on this request page are asserting things about the real nature of the problem, in ways that contradict one another, and that cannot possibly all be true. If that means that ArbCom is having difficulty envisioning what such a sprawling case would consist of, and lead to, that reflects what a mess this is. But not knowing ahead of time what the outcome will be is a feature, not a bug, because obviously you shouldn't prejudge the case. Let the community give you evidence. And this is one case where you should not skip the workshop. Perhaps the evidence will end up surprising you. If so, again, that's a feature and not a bug.
I'm going to propose the case scope right here: "Ongoing disruption in the Israel-Palestine topic area, with a particular emphasis on factors that interfere with the ability of WP:AE to handle the topic area, and on ways to solve those impediments". Use Red-tailed Hawk's parties list, and make clear that, because it's a long list, being on the list is not a presumption of wrongdoing. Then do these three things:
  1. Focus on conduct.
  2. Focus on conduct.
  3. Focus on conduct.
I predict you'll end up finding that this has a lot less to do with POV than some editors are claiming. And you won't have to judge source material the way that it happened in the Polish Holocaust case. Personally, I expect to present some evidence in the form of:
  • "Brief quote from a source." ([link to source]). "What an editor put on the page." ([diff]).
(Although, in my case, it might not show what you expect now.) I'd suggest other editors, with more experience in the content area than I have, consider doing that, too. Arbs might want to click on those source links to check them for yourselves, but that's as far into source material as I expect you will need to go.
But the community expects ArbCom to solve the intractable problems that the community has failed to solve. ArbCom knows that this is one of them. To drop the ball on the basis that the request process wasn't good enough would be failing the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gratified that Barkeep49 agrees with my idea about the scope, but I want to caution against narrowing the parties list too much. Barkeep49's suggestion definitely leaves out editors who need to be examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very skeptical that the proposed motions will have a positive effect on the topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that ArbCom has an obligation to deal with these problems via full cases, and not simply motions. But if the difficulties of creating a named parties list are getting in the way of a single, large case, then the idea posed by several other editors, of having one case about the topic area and how it affects AE (but not getting ArbCom into reviewing source material!), followed by a second case focusing on editor conduct, might well be the most practical way to accomplish it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question about how to avoid making the topic-area case into a mudslinging contest, limit the named parties only to AE admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Perhaps I'm posting here too much, but ArbCom's near-silence creates a vacuum.) ArbCom, don't get distracted by outside publications claiming bias in our content. It's special pleading, and ArbCom shouldn't end up with another Polish Holocaust case. We've got a problem, apparently, with a bottomless well of newish accounts that make life difficult for good-faith editors, which is something that AE should be able to handle. And I believe strongly that we have a problem with experienced editors who make it too difficult for AE to do its job. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction to Motion 5, establishing a full case, is that I hope ArbCom will indeed go that route. About the parties list, I think it would be very helpful to clarify further how, precisely, additional parties might be added. Where I'm coming from is that I, personally, feel that I can provide evidence about two editors, one of whom is on the proposed parties list, and one of whom isn't. I'm extremely disinclined to name names before the time comes for posting evidence on the Evidence page, because I don't want to subject myself to the predictable complaints about casting aspersions. I'm weighing how I might present evidence about the editor who is currently a potential named party, in such a way as to make it apparent that evidence could also be in scope for the editor who is not currently named, but I'm unsure about how well that would work. I can envision a bad scenario in which editors provide evidence in that way, following what we think is ArbCom's instruction to propose adding named parties, and then find themselves admonished for having, in good faith, presented evidence about editors who were not named parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Primefac's recent comment about adding parties based on evidence that supports doing so, where the documented content parallels that of already-named parties. Perhaps that could work, if ArbCom will not bend to retaliatory demands to add the editor who posted the evidence as yet another named party. It also occurs to me that some of the most active AE admins should also be named parties, not because they are being scrutinized, but because they are particularly well-positioned to provide evidence and should have more generous word limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the hopes of moving this very slow discussion forwards towards a case, I'll say that there should, indeed, be some revision of the parties list, and, for those Arbs who are still unsure of what a full case could accomplish that motions would not, I believe that if ArbCom, after fully reviewing evidence, will remove some experienced editors from certain kinds of discussions, that will lead to improvements in the editing environment (and in AE's ability to handle complaints), in ways that the motions will not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this page is for dialog between the community and ArbCom, and not between editors filing statements, but I feel the urge to react to what Selfstudier addressed to me, saying that I'm prejudging the case. The answer is that I'm not on ArbCom, so I don't get to judge the case at all, but I do hope to present evidence that will help ArbCom reach a good judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

I echo the comments of Tryptofish, Vanamonde93 and SFR. The topic area features a large number of experienced editors who have, whether consciously or not, decided to ignore CTOP protocols. This not only has the effect of turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be, but also negatively affects the experiences and habits of newer editors who follow the combative, actively hostile methods of those they look up to. Editors of all sides appear to have an unspoken agreement that civility shouldn't really matter when discussing such controversial subject matter (e.g. nableezy's statement above). This is unacceptable. I strongly endorse implementing the actions outlined by SFR as immediate remedies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, while I don't particularly appreciate being snidely labelled a pro-Israel complainer, I do appreciate an immediate example of "experienced editors . . turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be". So—on balance, notwithstanding its intention—I thank you for your statement! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I do urge ArbCom to particularly investigate the accusations of misrepresenting sources (an extremely serious one that takes time and effort to get to the bottom of) and of people taking inconsistent policy positions (a key component mentioned in WP:CIVILPOV, which is rarely enforced) as well as the battleground / aspersion / WP:AGF issues mentioned above. The edit-warring is important and is easy to see (hence why so many cases focus on it), but if that was enough to resolve this then we wouldn't be at ArbCom. The root cause is battleground mentalities and civil POV-pushing; misrepresenting sources and taking inconsistent policy positions point much more directly to that problem. (And, of course, I also urge people to present evidence to those things in the evidence phase, if it gets to that point, because ArbCom needs that - my past experience with cases like these is that both editors and ArbCom tend to focus on the "easy" aspects of WP:CIVIL and WP:EW, ignoring the underlying causes or more complex aspects.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to second Loki's statement below that much of the problem is drive-by new editors or SPAs with few edits elsewhere - a lot of the other comments here have basically said "this is all about a few bad editors"; I don't think that's correct. In topic areas like this, where the disputes here reflect serious real-world divides, new / inexperienced users and blatant new SPAs are going to constantly flow into the topic area and require experienced editors who are willing to take the time and effort to keep an eye on a vast number of pages in order to maintain some semblance of balance or even just basic compliance with policy. We aren't going to solve the underlying A/I conflict on Wikipedia; the topic area is always going to be fraught. And the simple fact is that distinguishing between an experienced editor who eg. frequently reverts in a particular way because they're doing the necessary gruntwork of dealing with an endless tide of SPAs trying to blatantly add a particular bias an article, and an experienced editor who is performing WP:CIVILPOV-pushing themselves while WP:BITE-ing innocent new editors, is often not obvious. Part of the reason an ArbCom case is needed is because the community and AE aren't equipped for that; but this also means it's important to approach the case with an eye towards the drive-by / SPA problem, at least as context for the behavior of parties to the case, and not just "who are the bad people we can make go away in order to solve this." --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the motions, I don't think that any of them are likely to help. The core problems in the topic area are sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and canvassing, coupled with the scale and intensity of the underlying real-world conflict, which inevitably spills over into editing and leads to knock-on WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND issues; all of these are difficult to resolve in a single sweeping motion. But several of these are likely to actually make problems worse, not better.

What we need are in-depth looks at individual editor conduct in order to catch sockpuppets / meatpuppets, identify canvassing, and remove civil POV-pushers. These things are hard, which is why they haven't been done yet, but sweeping from-above solutions aren't a substitute. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

Tryptofish's experience here echoes mine. The tendentiousness, bludgeoning, and sealioning behavior from these battleground editors makes it exhausting and frustrating for non-battleground editors to participate. In any event, I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute, in contrast to the uninvolved parties saying, essentially: "It's you: you're the problem." I think that's rather telling. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the proposed motions: I don't have confidence that they're going to fix the problem, but they're all pretty harmless so why not try them..... except Motion #3. That one seems quite dangerous to me, actually when read in conjunction with Motion #1. It creates the risk that an administrator who is not themselves involved, but who wishes to push their finger on the scale of the matter, could simply "knock out" any other admin (or non-admin editor) as being "involved" with the only recourse being (if Motion #1 also goes through) an Arbitration appeal. That seems highly unlikely to reduce the amount of heat on the topic, and I don't see how it leads to the goal of encouraging outside voices. If there's a concern over specific administrators taking actions while being involved, I think that should be raised individually on a case-by-case basis. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Jeske+Barkeep's suggestion of splitting this into topic area and editor conduct halves I think merits further examination. Depending on how those two groupings relate to each other (e.g. if findings from the topic area can inform whether editor conduct issues exist), that could be a clean way of approaching at least part of this. It's at least the most workable suggestion I've seen thusfar. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

I edit around the edge of this topic area, focussing on Israeli politics and civil society, and have had the misfortune over the years to have ended up in disputes with editors pushing both anti-Israel and pro-Israel POV on articles where our paths corss. I very much welcome the suggestion that long-term tag-teaming, POV pushing and the ineffectiveness of current tools to stop this should be looked at. From my nearly 20 years' experience, the main issue has always been that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV – anyone can look at their contribution histories and see that their contributions are primarily adding things that make their side look good/the other look bad and deleting information to the contrary; in discussions such as RMs, RfCs or AfDs, their stances are easily predicted based on their editing history. A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage). Number 57 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re LokiTheLiar's comment below that "a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users", I would say that is only partially correct. These users tend to be the worst in terms of edit warring and other more flagrant violations of Wikipedia rules. However, IMO the real issue here is the fact that the topic area is dominated by a relatively small number of long-term editors who rarely break rules such as 3RR etc, but (as said above) are purely here to push their POV and support other members of their group in doing so. They have been allowed to do this for years – the question is whether the community sees this as perfectly fine, or whether it wants to do something about it (which IO think can only be achieved by a mass handout of topic bans). Number 57 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Bluethricecreamman's comments: NOTAVOTE (an essay, not a rule) is not really relevant; closes against the majority of views expressed only tend to occur when there is a clear right/wrong (e.g. alignment with a certain policy or guideline). In this topic area, most things are arguable, and therefore the number of attendees do swing discussion outcomes – while this isn't an issue as a one-off, when it is many discussions over many years, it is a problem.
Re my views on 30/500 – my concern is that it is a deterrent to new editors entering the topic sphere, which is one of the issues preventing an equalisation in the number of POV pushers on each side (as I've said above, I would rather they were all topic banned, but if Wikipedia is going to tolerate POV pushers in contentious topic areas, at least allow them to contribute in roughly equal numbers). I've been here nearly 20 years and the dominant personalities in this topic sphere have barely changed in the last ten. Number 57 20:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And re Nableezy's comment about me – disingenuous at best. For context, what I objected to was including the same paragraph of text about the legal status of Israeli settlements in the introduction of every single article on a settlement – my view was that everyone knows they are illegal and simply saying it is an Israeli settlement makes that clear. And for those who have been here long enough to remember, my RfA was disrupted by canvassing by pro-Israel editors who considered me to be a problem because I was doing things like removing articles on settlements from "in Israel" categories. Number 57 23:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I had been calling people in the topic area POV pushers for years before the discussion you reference and my issues with you also started well before then as well. While I have been accused of bias, it has come from both sides, and that gives me reassurance that I must be doing something right. I was once even accused of being a friend of Nishidani, which I'm not sure either of us would agree is the case. Number 57 00:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Huldra's information, unfortunately I have had numerous people wishing me death and other unpleasant things both on and off-wiki – most recently in June an IP left numerous edit summaries on articles saying I should be tortured, stabbed, beheaded, raped or "bullied to suicide". Number 57 00:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I don't think it's appropriate to get into an argument about who has suffered the most abuse, particularly using a single metric like talkpage redactions – the fact is that no-one should receive any level of abuse for editing Wikipedia. And also worth noting that I have also been impacted as a result of removing "in Israel" from Israeli settlements (when I removed them all from "in Israel" categories back in 2007). Number 57 23:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Not to sound repetitive, but I'll echo the comments of Tryptofish, AirshipJungleman29, and Swatjester. I dabbled in editing within the topic area some months back, but quickly opted to mostly stay away - since December or so, my related editing has only been in the Current Events portal/ITNC and various admin/arbitration noticeboards. This pivot was due to the absurd levels of incivility, condescension, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, edit-warring, hypocrisy, and virtually every other type of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing humanly possible, from a core group of editors that perennially show up to scream at each other in every discussion; there's a level of toxicity that just makes me want to ignore the area entirely. This BATTLEGROUND issue is only compounded by the fact that virtually all of the culprits are WP:UNBLOCKABLE - they wholly disregard WP policies and prior warnings/sanctions, as most ARBPIA sanctions for experienced editors have effectively amounted to slaps on the wrist. I'd also like to specifically emphasize the point made by Swatjester of I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute, as from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the [pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian] POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all participants.

In short, I strongly endorse both an Arbcom case and SFR's suggested remedies. I will openly disclose that I openly endorse nuking the topic area's userbase via mass TBANs, as I don't think starting from scratch could make things any worse than they currently are - that said, I understand that's a rather draconian/heavy-handed solution. The Kip (contribs) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regards to the core group/"usual suspects" claim, I'd also like to link this chart gathered by @Thebiguglyalien: some months ago for a different arb case. Some of the more active users noted on that chart are now TBANned, but it still serves as a solid chunk of data for the mass-scale POV-warring in the area. The Kip (contribs) 22:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to say I politely disagree with Tryptofish's assessment of the main area of conflict; while that is a dispute in the area, and as they say, a particularly nasty one, I think the main issue is indeed the Israeli vs Palestinian POV-warring. While AE could in theory deal with that, in practice it's been reluctant to for one reason or another - many of the experienced editors in question often straddle a line of problematic behavior that AE has seemed unwilling to definitively bring down the hammer on (hence my WP:UNBLOCKABLE concerns mentioned above), and that Arbcom may be more open to conclusively dealing with. As a result of AE's apparent higher threshold needed for experienced editors, things like civil POV-pushing, bludgeoning, weaponization of process, less "blatant" incivility, and so on are difficult to definitively sanction - you have to badly cross multiple lines to receive anything more than a logged warning that is almost always disregarded by the receiver in the long run.
That's not even to mention the specific reasons why this case was primarily brought here (in my understanding), that being AE is mainly intended to be an A reporting B case forum. When the issue at hand is tag-teaming, multi-party edit warring, multi-party incivility, etc, AE's not too well-equipped to deal with a case where A and B want to report C, D, and E, except A and B have also been engaging in the reported behavior themselves, and F probably was too but wasn't brought to the case until later due to a variety of reasons. The Kip (contribs) 00:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar the problem is those new-ish users are fairly easily dealt with via AE, if they haven't already violated ECR. On the contrary, AE has shown itself to be reluctant to heavily sanction any heavily-experienced, long-term editors - see how some of those named in this case pretty much receive only logged warnings and/or minor things such as revert restrictions for substantial incivility, abuse of AE process, edit-warring, etc that would've gotten a newer user swiftly blocked. The Kip (contribs) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further reading of comments here from multiple users on either side of the POV-war they either deny exists or insist it's mainly/only the other side that's toxic, I'd like to reiterate:
from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the [pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian] POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all participants.
WP:RGW, WP:BRIE, et al. This complete lack of introspection/acknowledgement that "hey, maybe I'm part of the problem too" is exactly why many in the area, if not all its experienced users, deserve sanctions. The Kip (contribs) 18:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to make something very clear, just so my position on the area doesn't get grouped in by one side with the other side of editors here and at large (which may already be happening):

Some previous and later commenters seem to think that my idea of "nuking the topic area" means only mass-TBANning the problematic people from the aforementioned side with more editors (see there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the [pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian] POV-pushers everything would be fine yet again), thereby artificially enforcing "neutrality" by simply evening the numbers. That is not my view - mine is that all of the problematic editors be banned, POV be damned. The Kip (contribs) 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with all due respect to @Sean.hoyland: - WP:SOCK will always be a problem in the area, nuke or not, but it's a problem that can be dealt with somewhat easily via SPI and sockpuppeteers having an almost comical tendency to accidentally out themselves. We shouldn't just put up with how much of a mess things currently are because there's the potential that it could get worse, and anyways, I disagree that the hypothetical "it could get really bad" is worse than the current reality of "it's a toxic disaster zone." The Kip (contribs) 23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zanahary

It’s a small group of editors making this topic area hell for editors and a headache (I’d imagine) for administrators. I used to involve myself heavily in this topic area, and it’s the only such area where I’ve witnessed personal attacks, bullying, glaring dishonesty and hypocrisy in defense of violation of WP policy, and an apparent policy of assuming bad faith from anyone whom you believe you’ve sussed out to disagree with you go totally unpunished and be downright normalized—and it’s mostly coming from a handful of dominant editors. Something’s gotta give, and if that’s a rain of topic bans, then so be it. I see a few names listed that I believe do little more here than worsen the project. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravpapa

Once an active editor in this topic area, I have for the last few years assiduously eschewed any involvement. But I would like, nonetheless to add this comment:

I think we are all looking at the wrong thing. We are discussing editor behavior, but we should be looking at the quality of the articles in the topic area. And, I think we can all agree, the articles are abysmal. They are bloated with polemics, they magnify ephemeral new items into international crises that change the course of history, they are often so full or quotes and counterquotes that they are practically unintelligible.

Will massive topic bans make the articles better? I doubt it. With the Middle East conflict, we have exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

ArbCom should be aware that the table BilledMammal has offered as evidence above (Bludgeoning statistics) is deeply flawed. Efforts to encourage him to include a disclaimer noting that his "methodology" does not control for the presence of bludgeoning sockpuppets in discussions (for example) were rebuffed. As a single example, Kentucky Rain24 made about 48 comments on Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? enticing several editors into responding.

Prior to my comments on the talk page there was no methodology section. Now, BM has added some clarifications, but as a quick roll-over of that link shows, he is controlling what page visitors are aware of.

I very rarely edit in this topic area and only looked into this table due to past experience with Billed Mammal and Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100) working in concert here. This is also why I learned that 18% of BilledMammal's edits to mainspace have been reverted, which might be worth looking into. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record... after further research I have been able to determine that it was the decision to set the cutoff at 20 comments rather than at 18 which kept Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100) from appearing on BilledMammal's list. That said, and as others have already said on the talk page (or when it is was brought to ANI as an attack page), showing that people engaged in discussion, provided RS, debunked silly arguments, responded to sockpuppet provocation, etc. does not show that people "bludgeoned" anything. As the explanatory essay says: Participating fully isn't a bad thing. If there were any utility to a page which simply counts the number of times someone's signature appears on a page, I would ask him to rerun the data based on 18 comments in 4 discussions so that NoCal100 would appear in his list. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 02:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the data BilledMammal has assembled here show conclusively that known sockpuppets have made more changes to PIA than any single named user.
This was determined by calculating changes to PIA made by those Billed Mammal listed in red, which is a partial list of sockpuppets in that table. My mentioning this in the methodology section bothered BM, who immediately deleted the mention of these 15,802 changes as being a datum apparently unrelated to disruption in the topic area. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 12:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domedtrix

I am relatively new to this topic area on Wikipedia, though I have read around the topic offline over a number of years.

I would like to echo the points of many editors above, that there is a culture of bludgeoning, tag teaming and tendentious editing, particularly of the Righting Great Wrongs variety. @BilledMammal illustrated this excellently here, though that is not to say the same behavious doesn't occur across more than the two editors singled out in that diff. Though I have seen tendentious editing multiple times, I am very reticent to call it out, in part because such accusations add more fuel to the fire.

What makes this topic particularly tricky to deal with, however, is not that editors in this space are typically new to the site (although as I know from editing in the WP:FOOTBALL space, any current event will draw large crowds), as is often the case when we see these types of issues. Instead, editors here are often incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable of processes, and thus how to make a contentious change stick. This enables Wikilawyering on a scale that I've frankly not encountered anywhere else on Wikipedia in my history of making active edits, though I accept I am far below the median in this discussion by this metric. This, in combination with a format for resolving disputes that often seems to favour the most mobilised side, despite WP:VOTE expressly stating this shouldn't be a factor, has resulted in a topic area where, as @ABHammad observes, Wikipedia is out-of-step with a large number of the reliable sources that we rely on for other topics across Wikipedia. In my view, this amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia's voice for political ends.

The consensus process has broken down because too many experienced editors seem to have no interest in finding any consensus. I agree with @Zanahary that Badgering and Wikilawyering particularly scares off many that would like to approach the topic, so we're left with the same faces over and over again, and also the same problems. It is very rare in these interminable discussions that I see people give an iota. There is no end in sight, because it seems the desired state of the articles in the topic area from one (or each) 'side' of this conflict will likely not be content until 'perfection' is achieved.

We have been too slow to act here. It has been public knowledge for some time that Discord servers are being used to WP:CANVAS people with specific viewpoints. As this is done off-site, it is hard to know the scale of the impact, but that should not prevent the implementation of measures to guard against this risk.

The more I read in this topic area, the more disheartened I become by the state of our collective actions as editors, and the more I find myself aligning with @The_Kip's suggestion of nuking the topic area with mass topic bans. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's hard to imagine whatever fills this void being worse than what is already here. As @Ravpapa stated, it's not like we're protecting much of value here - this process has resulted in articles of fairly poor quality, a result of incessent pointscoring within articles. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: A response to Bluethricecreamman's comments: NOTAVOTE (an essay, not a rule) is not really relevant; closes against the majority of views expressed only tend to occur when there is a clear right/wrong (e.g. alignment with a certain policy or guideline). In this topic area, most things are arguable, and therefore the number of attendees do swing discussion outcomes – while this isn't an issue as a one-off, when it is many discussions over many years, it is a problem.
History repeats itself. A contentious move is confirmed by @Amakuru:. The rationale? "from a rough count, I see around 22 !votes endorsing the closure and 15 saying to overturn. I also don't see any kind of slam-dunk argument in the overturn !votes". This is a repeating problem and is only leading to parties that are able to mobilise more effectively getting changes made. I'm not saying policy is being purposefully gamed here, but if it was, this is one way it might look. Tagging @Joe Roe: here as it would be rude not to, given I've mentioned one of their closes. For full disclosure, I opposed the original close. Domeditrix (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As an occasional participant in this topic area, I'd like to second Zero's suggestion that mass topic bans are not likely to be useful because a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users. ArbCom already got a taste of this earlier this year when it banned a bunch of pro-Israel meatpuppets.

Speaking of which, I'd also like to encourage ArbCom that, when it looks at editor behavior, to actually look at the behavior of every individual involved and not assume "both sides are at fault" without evidence. Loki (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that my assessment of the behavior of established editors is notably less negative than many other people here. I basically agree with nableezy: it's inherently a contentious topic area and so disagreements are common and will always be common. It's also unsurprising that many editors take editorial lines that lean towards one side or the other of the conflict: editors aren't required to have no POV, only articles are. None of this is that surprising to me for editing in a contentious topic area and I don't think that any of this per se is a problem.
I do think it's a problem when editors edit war, or cross the bounds of civility, or bludgeon discussions, or bring your opponents to drama boards to try to get them removed from the topic area, or try to push a POV over what reliable sources support. And definitely some of that has been happening here, and I encourage ArbCom to look at the behavior of individual editors in this topic area. But I don't think this stuff coming from established editors is a systemic issue over and above the inherent fact that the Israel/Palestine conflict just is a contentious topic. It's fine to not want to edit in a contentious topic area but I don't think that a topic area being intimidating to edit in is by itself an issue. Loki (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Given the pushback from regulars in this area, I'll add one more voice from someone who's only edited at the edge of the topic area and have felt dissuaded from contributing further. I can't say it better than Swatjester: "'It's you: you're the problem'". Whatever excuses the entrenched editors might have, their behavior is the worst of any topic area on Wikipedia. Everyone here knows which users I'm talking about and which sides they fall on, but we have to pretend we don't so as not to be accused of casting aspersions. I see an Arbcom case as the only way to turn this years-old "open secret" into something actionable.

The habit of always !voting in a way that benefits the same nation is a problem, and it becomes obvious when someone uses one reasoning to come to one conclusion but then uses the opposite reasoning when it's the other side up for discussion. This is commonly answered with the contradictory ideas that "they're the POV pushers, our side is just correct" and that "users are allowed to have their own POV", with the latter suggesting that it's okay to let POV dictate editing and !voting instead of following policies and sources. Call it battleground, tag-teaming, CPUSH, whatever you like, but in my opinion it should be a major focus when considering whether the editors in this area are here to build a neutral encyclopedia.

Contrary to what other statements here are arguing, I believe there are legitimate issues about editors who are only here to edit PIA. This is a strong indicator of WP:ACTIVIST/WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE style editing, even when they have high edit counts or several years of experience. This will always be a contentious topic, but it is possible to prioritize the sources over your own beliefs when editing in contentious topics. The current regulars have forced out anyone who might be willing to do this.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the link provided by Nableezy: a reminder that WikiProjects cannot enforce their local consensus on articles. Conclusions reached by a WikiProject are recognized as essays. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, replying more so to you because you've provided the strongest argument against my own and have convinced me to some degree. The most critical issue, in my opinion, is tag-teaming. Which regular editors in the area are working together to !vote lockstep, always in a way that favors the same cause? Especially when they apply different rationales depending on which side benefits (articles making Israel look bad must always be deleted and making Palestine look bad must always be kept, or vise versa, even if they have the same merits).

Your definition of "behaving tendentiously" would be a huge step in the right direction, but we'd need to flesh it out in a way that might be impossible. I've raised the issue at AE before, but no one could provide an example of what diffs are necessary to demonstrate this. Even though—if we all choose not to insult each other's intelligence—it's public knowledge who the most prominent tag-teamers are.

Regarding the academic "baseline", I don't believe there is one on most aspects. The controversy and disagreement are inherent to the subject area, including academia and history studies. The standard to declare something as a baseline fact should be overwhelming agreement in reliable sources. People who assert academic consensus on a subjective controversial topic are at best victims of confirmation bias and at worst maliciously misrepresenting. The people who insist that it's "correct vs incorrect" as opposed to "pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine" should be given additional scrutiny here.

Encouraging people to avoid the use of news media and primary reporting in articles on current events is something of a pet cause of mine in general (that I've elaborated upon in an essay), and such avoidance will almost always produce better results.

I see the sockpuppetry issue to be a red herring. That's not to say it's not a huge problem, but the current focus is established users, and there are factors that make this more urgent:

To stretch the cat analogy that's been raised, we're trying to build a home for mice. We've known the dangers of cats for a long time. Keeping entrenched editors to protect us from socks and newbies is like keeping cats to protect the mice from kittens. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that HJ Mitchell is doing what we elected him to do and trying to get solve the problem. With that said, I'm also not a fan of these proposals. They seem geared toward the "loud" disruption, when the accusations of "quiet" disruption are why it got referred to Arbcom. Just a few days ago, Arbcom reaffirmed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Presumption of coordination. I would like to see a case in which the most frequent participants in the area are scrutinized, and that this will be proposed as a principle to guide any and all remedies. The repeated insistence from frequent participants that only newbies and socks are the problem has further convinced me that this is necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

Number 57's point gets at the heart of the issue: the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers. This often leads to situations where there's an apparent consensus which goes against (the natural or customary interpretation of) our content policies. The result is passionate edit warring, with one side righteously enforcing consensus, and the other righteously enforcing content policies.

The Zionism edit war covered at AE is one example - there's an apparent consensus to state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that Zionism is colonization. It's frankly very hard to see how such an unequivocal statement could comply with NPOV, given the long list of scholars who take issue with the characterization. But it's difficult to enforce policies against a majority, and four editors have been brought to AE for attempts to do, with another threatened.

Another example is Gaza genocide. If that isn't a WP:POVNAME, I don't know what is. Some editors argued that titles do not imply statements, effectively saying that POV names do not exist. Such arguments tend to be invoked selectively. The move received significant press ([43], [44], [45], [46], etc), damaging Wikipedia's credibility.

I don't think word count limits would help. A bright-line rule against bludgeoning might help avoid lengthy discussions filled with redundancies, but that isn't the core issue. Enforcing behavioral policies more rigorously might help attract a few more neutral editors. The real solution would be to warn or sanction editors who repeatedly promote unreasonable or inconsistent interpretations of content policies, but of course that's difficult since such policy matters aren't black and white. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Radical Change by Ravpapa

So long as we remain in the realm of editor behavioral change, we will get nowhere. What is required is structural change. In this topic area, we need to abandon the open consensual editing model that has been at the heart of Wikipedia since its inception. Here is what I propose that we do:

We recruit a committee of five to ten senior editors, who have never edited in the topic area, who have no identifiable bias, and who are equally unacceptable to both sides. Only members of this committee will be allowed to edit in the topic area.

The committee will be charged with reviewing the entire corpus of Middle East articles, and making any editorial and structural changes that they see fit, including:

The committee should look not only at individual articles, but at the corpus in its entirety, thinking creatively about the best way to present information. I give examples and suggest such structural changes in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, which I wrote 15 years ago but is just as relevant today as then.

The committee will have the power to delete, merge and rename articles by consensus within their own group, without having to go through the regular article deletion. merge or rename processes. Anyone can, of course, comment on the talk page and make suggestions. But only the committee can actually edit. This proposal preserves the heart of the consensual editing model (though not strictly open), but eliminates the possibility for contentious editing.

It is a huge task. I am not volunteering. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

A PIA5 case has the possibility to go completely FUBAR if it attempts to litigate the entirety of the topic area and regular editors in those areas. This is a stupidly contentious topic and I suspect if we looked at the complete records of every regular editor a well-meaning member of ArbCom could probably go all Portals on us and find a spurious reason to ban them. No, my idea would be to concentrate on the three areas which appear to causing the most issues at the moment.

Also, per Rosguill below. That particular shambles of an RfC is quite revealing. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Based on my vantage point of having only really participated in I/P topics by way of RSN and AE discussions, I am perplexed by various assertions made in this clarification request. Reading through discussions like the recent ADL RfC, the recent Al-Jazeera RfC, a recent discussion of +972 a recent discussion of general Israeli sources, there is a consistent group of editors that repeatedly accuse a list of sources they have deemed to be "anti-Israel" while also defending-ad-bludgeon advocacy sources like the ADL and categorically defining Israeli news media as reliable. These discussions do not display the converse: there is no bloc of editors that rejects Israeli sources out of hand while categorically insisting that pro-Palestinian sources are reliable (for further evidence, see the recent Electronic Intifada RfC). We do occasionally see editors pop up who reject Israeli sources out of hand on talk pages (usually alongside US and potentially even European sources), but I don't see anyone named in this report that exhibits this behavior. Such editors are shown the door. signed, Rosguill talk 14:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Huldra

  • And then we have cat-herders who likes to play as a cat, at times,
  • As for Number 57 view: "the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage" As an editor who has been "credited" by off-wiki web-sites and blogs with bringing about this rule, I can say: "credit where credit is due", namely with the more unhinged of Israels' supporters. It was their incessant rape- and murder- threats which brought about this policy. AFAIK, Number 57 has never been threatened with murder for editing wiki, or seeing his loved ones being raped (And I am happy -and relieved- he hasn't!), but I wish he would try to imagine how he would have felt.
  • As for Number 57 view: "is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV I could also easily name such a group – but it would prabably be a totally different group from the one (I guess) Number 57 has in mind,
  • I agree fully with Zero0000's asseccment: "There is a reason why many editors who enter the I/P area quickly decide that it is toxic and controlled by a cabal. It's because they come along armed with nothing except strong political opinions and a few newspaper articles, and don't like it when they meet experienced editors familiar with the vast academic literature. The small fraction of new editors who arrive with genuine knowledge of the topic have a much better time of it", I have met people with PhDs in the I/P-area, who knows far, far less about the history of the area, than some of my fellow wiki-editors.
  • As for Guerillero' wish for better cat-herding rules; I was thinking of something like: scratch another cat's face: 1 month's automatic topic-ban. Of course "scratch another cat's face" has to be minutely defined ;/, I didn' think I scratched a cat's face here, but that cat apparently disagreed! Huldra (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, some cats have been more attacked than most, [47], [48],[49],[50], while others have managed to get by with hardly a single scratch; [51] [52] (and no: that isn't because our editing is that bad: some of the very worst abuse I have suffered was after I removed that the Western Wall was "In Israel" (It isn't, according to the International community.) Huldra (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that some cats are the subject of off-wiki harassment and outing-attempts, while others are not. I cannot recall in all my years here that there has been a single attack-page aimed at the pro-Israeli editors, while there have been at least half a dozen attacking those editor not deemed pro-Israeli enough. And outing: apparently you will "help the state of Israel" if you make public my RN. Gosh, this cat had no idea that she was that important! Oh well, on the internet nobody knows you're a ......dog, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Number 57 and User:Swatjester say they have received death treaths, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, and I am very sorry they have done so, BUT: Do you deny that the threats against "the-not-so-pro-Israli"-editors is far greater than against the "pro-israeli" editors? After all, your talk-pages are blissfully clean of Wikipedia:RD2 and Wikipedia:RD3, after nearly 20 years each for both of you.
  • To re-iterate: some of the worst abuse I have recieved is over removing "in Israel" from places which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. This should have been totally uncontroversial, but apparently isn't. Likewise, I sometimes have to undo edits which place Arab cities in Israel in "Palestine"[53] others do so rutinely as well, [54][55]. All of these edits should have been uncontroversial. But I know that when I do the former (ie.removing "in Israel" from places which have been occupied by Israel since 1967) I can expect a tsunami of insults and threats, while when I do the latter (ie: placing Arab cities in Israel), I have *never* recieved any such reaction. Why this difference, I wonder?cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments after reading some of the other comment here:

" Keeping entrenched editors to protect us from socks and newbies is like keeping cats to protect the mice from kittens" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Try clarifying the first few lines. I obviously got the wrong impression. Jehochman Talk 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arkon

Seeing many comments that should be saved for the Arb case over the last few days. Is there some threshold that needs to be passed before this case is opened?Arkon (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in on two weeks since I commented the above, sheesh. Arkon (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol. But not really. Arkon (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot about the nothing being done here. pokes with stick Arkon (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shushugah

Statement by berchanhimez

I haven't wanted to comment here because I feel that others are saying what I would have to say. But I feel it needs to be stressed that some editors are continuing to blatantly ignore policies and guidelines even in this request which concerns such behaviors. To quote The whole point of RSN deliberations, and you engage in them often, is to distinguish between narrow and wide bias in newspapers. A narrow bias doesn't imperil the general reliability of a source: a wide bias can lead to deprecation. This flat out contradicts the applicable PAG pages of WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV § Bias in sources. However, Nishidani is correct that a wide bias can lead to deprecation - I am unsure if this has actually happened (and if it has whether it's happened in the Israel-Palestine subject area), but it only takes a quick look through contentious topics on RSN to see that editors are engaging in civil POV pushing (and sometimes uncivil) through attempting to deprecate sources that have a bias towards opinions they disagree with. This is but one example of the experienced editors blatantly admitting to ignoring PAGs when they disagree with the inevitable outcome of them.

This gets at the root cause of the issues in this (and likely other) contentious topics. Those editors with experience have "practice" in using PAGs in discussions - which is great as discussions should be based on how to apply our PAGs to specific disputes. However, their experience also means they are good at abusing PAGs to further their point of view and ensure Wikipedia reflects what they think is "right". To be clear, I am not denying that contentious topics are likely to have more sockpuppetry or newer editors in the topic areas than a "tame" subject would. That does not, however, justify cherrypicking PAGs that support one side, and ignoring arguments to the contrary - and it especially does not justify bludgeoning discussions so that the closer has no choice but to find those arguments "stronger" simply because people either tire out of refuting the claims, tire out of pointing out the failures of the arguments made, or are threatened with administrative action by those who know they can be quick to take complaints to friends who are administrators or boards like AE without threat to themselves no matter what they did to fan the flames. Funnily enough, when one of these editors has their conduct called out, the others tend to show up and bludgeon that discussion - through deflecting focus on to the editor making the report or those supporting it, through calling into questions the motives of editors who are simply trying to remove bad behavior from the topic area, and ultimately through derailing any chance that the behavior is addressed. That is why this is back at ArbCom after what, 4 prior cases? And of course, many of the problematic experienced editors have already shown up to this request to bludgeon here with chants of "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" over, and over, and over again to try and deflect from and/or justify their own behavior.

A contentious topic does not need to have more heat than light in any discussion. I support this case being opened with a wide reaching list of parties - to the point that I would not feel it unreasonable for people like myself, whose editing in the area is limited to participation in a small number of discussions with a small number of comments. However, the root cause of these problems isn't the sockpuppetry (where it occurs), it isn't those who ask others to respond to their PAG based arguments, it isn't even bludgeoning or incivility by "one side". The problem is that experienced editors here (as elsewhere on the internet) tend to gravitate towards the same side, and via strength in numbers can continue to make systemic bias worse, silence opposition/alternative points of view, and ultimately control the topic area. One need only look at the significant number of experienced editors who are not a part of the "in group" who've commented here that they avoid this topic area because they have no hope of participating constructively against the other experienced editors - whether they're working in coordination or simply independently being disruptive. As such, I see the only solution being the indefinite removal (topic ban - not warning) of any and all experienced editors who have, even just once, turned the heat up.

There are more than enough editors who, if those whose only response to disagreement is to turn up the heat are removed, would be willing to contribute in the topic area to keep the encyclopedia running. The result of this case will determine whether I myself will feel like my contributions are welcomed in the topic area and that I won't have to spend time fighting bludgeoning from another side with no hopes of having my points ever refuted.

Since this ARCA has been opened, there has been at least two more AE requests related to this topic area. ArbCom would do good to actually state their intentions on this issue - either open a case (or voice your intention to do so more clearly) so that AE admins can focus on other topic areas (outside obvious socks/SPAs/etc that AE can continue to handle), or resolve the issues in this topic area by some other means. As it stands, editors on the side with more experienced editors can continue to weaponize AE to remove editors they don't like from the topic area since AE admins feel obligated to continue reviewing reports with what ideally should be an impending case - and as they've said multiple times, AE isn't the right place nor equipped to handle reports regarding conduct that crosses over a plethora of editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see all motions being proposed as merely kicking the can down the road. The problems in this topic area are those like Levivich who have taken to making threats (as Barkeep points out) to other editors because they seem to feel they're immune to sanctions. By resolving this without any sanctions against the editors making this topic area contentious, that is only going to give those editors more reason to continue their disruption and "civil" POV pushing behaviors. A full case, with evidence, should be opened. If after the full case, ArbCom still feels those motions are the best way to resolve this, well fine. But an ARCA is not the place to expect to be given all the evidence, so we will just end up with a case eventually. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to presume the evidence posted by Amayorov was something that would be best suited as private evidence in an ArbCom case. This is even more reason that a case should be opened rather than trying to dispense with this by motion(s). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on motions

Ultimately, I still think a full case would be ideal to determine if any editors need to be removed from the area altogether, and to evaluate the exact extra tools that will be helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

I don't have a huge amount to say about the general question here, although I do gravitate towards Buidhe's point of view above... while this is clearly a hugely emotive and contentious topic area for many and of course there are numerous disputes, my from-a-distance perspective is that conduct is actually a lot better than you might expect. While many editors fall into one of two "camps", the WP principles of compromise, respecting others and objective analysis still seem to be present in many debates. I'd urge ArbCom to be extremely cautious about imposing too many editing restrictions or topic bans in this area, on either side of the debate, I think that would lead to less good coverage of the subject rather than more.

Anyway, I'm primarily commenting here because I was mentioned above by Domeditrix, seemingly criticising my close of the move review for the Gaza genocide article. I'd like to know what I was supposed to do differently in that instance? Perhaps it could have instead been a "no consensus" close, but the effect of endorsing the RM close would have been the same. It's been long-established that consensus building on Wikipedia takes place by viewing comments through the lens of policy, but equally closers almost always find consensus for the majority vote if there isn't a lot to choose between the strength of arguments. Bluntly, there isn't an objective policy that says Gaza genocide is a disallowed title, the closer of the original RM found consensus for that title, and many seasoned editors agreed. If Domeditrix and others think we should be evaluating discussions in a fundamentally different way from how we've historically done so, for example by not counting votes at all, then they need to run that by the community and get some sort of procedural update in place so we know exactly how to assess these things.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

I'm not here to comment on the case but to draw attention to a blog by a probably banned editor concerning this case and attacking a number of the editors here, specifically Number 57, Nableezy, Nishidani, Huldra, Black Kite, Sean.hoyland and Rosguill.[56] It also says "Only a technique called "semi-protection" (prohibiting people not logged in from editing) can stop crazy people from coming onto user pages and threatening editors. Huldra's Wikipedia user pages are not semi-protected." Doug Weller talk 14:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Jéské Couriano

Looking at my current group of AE archives (April 2024 - present)[a], of 75 threads (discounting the two duplicates) 38 of them are PIA-related. And of 94 threads from Oct. 2023 (and the Re'im massacre) to this past March, 41 of them are PIA related.

I get the sense that the ongoing Israel-Hamas war is a major driver of the increased (mis)conduct in the area given its grossly outsized invocation at AE over the past ten months, and while I do agree that PIA5 is all but necessary at this point, I would handle it as a separate matter to this, akin to COL/AP2. Have one case to handle the editor conduct issues highlighted at the AE thread here (focusing on individuals) and then a second one to address the climate in the topic area writ large (focusing on policy changes to the topic). Trying to conflate the two a la The Omnibus Case is just going to be a bigger timesink than just doing them separately. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: The Arab-Israeli conflict's Arbitration history well predates the first PIA case; PIA1 is simply the first time ArbCom turned its gaze on the situation as a whole rather than just hitting individual editors only. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ This figure does not count the (incomplete) Archive 339, nor does it count any unarchived threads at Enforcement, including the one referred here

Statement by RAN1

Speaking of the AE request about האופה, there's also the AE request about PeleYoetz which was closed as moot because of this referral (diff), so that should be reviewed too. RAN1 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hydrangeans

Without the context, I'm not convinced BilledMammal's User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_RM_statistics page is on its own illuminating. Contributing to discussions about moving articles intersects with the policy on titling articles which includes all sort of guidance about using a common name, neutrally naming articles with the exception of non-neutral common names, etc., and deciding how to note-vote ought to involve basing one's decision on what sources say. Without that context, it's presuming too much to look at information presented in this manner and conclude something about an editor's "pro"-ness of X or Y or what have you, which is implicitly assuming editors are contributing to those move discussions based on something like whims rather than on sources and PAGs. Looking at User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_RM_statistics, if I see that editor A supported move B for an article about C, it feels a bit superficial for me to think, 'aha, editor A is a pro-C partisan' instead of thinking, 'I had better immerse myself in the relevant literature and see if I agree that the secondary sources support move B for topic C'. To the extent that POV pushing is the animating concern of this referral, it rather matters that we know what perspective is expressed by the highest quality sources. Otherwise we're just going by feel and will have every chance of producing a false balance.

And all that, the original request for enforcement is practically forgotten. Like, it's been two weeks. Seems like all that's left to do is dismiss in light of האופה not editing since the report. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: When the claimed media coverage ends on a culture war note accusing the Wikimedia Foundation of fiddling to the baroque tunes of DEI because they're funding progressive activism, I'm not sure why we should be more worried about the opinion of Pirate Wire than the academically published findings in the fields of history, anthropology, etc. Pirate Wire may dislike how academics define Zionism, but on Wikipedia we follow the best sources. Beyond the article author's decision to write about both the ArbCom case and the apparently now defunct TFP, it's not clear what the actual relevance is. The only person who has posted in this request that apparently overlaps is @Shushugah:, whose quoted material in the article seems to indicate having been skeptical of the TFP enterprise from the start anyway. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Personisinsterest

[Replying to this mention. Reply moved from Statement by Nishidani.]

Don’t know what’s happening, but keep me out. If the argument is that I’m bias, true, but I try as hard as I can to be neutral, and I can provide examples of this. Personisinsterest (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Figureofnine

More needs to be done to improve the civility of the I/P pages, because the current atmosphere in these pages is simply unacceptable. Editors and administrators both too often disregard that civility is not a suggestion, not a behavioral guideline, but is policy. Last month I proposed the revival of an intermediary civility board at the Village Pump. [57] The discussion is useful less for the particulars of whether such a board is useful than it is for the cross-section of attitudes on display, which vary from concern to not giving a damn about civility. Note also that some of the most active I/P editors involved in this discussion participated there and aired their views on the subject of civility.

Civility simply is not taken seriously anymore anywhere in the project, is lackadaisically and usually not enforced at all, and is a sad memory in the I/P pages. WP:CIVIL needs to be strictly enforced especially in contentious topic areas. If editors cannot show respect for other editors they should not be allowed to edit there. Administrators need to act and I believe that Arbcom has a responsibility in this area as well. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: The recent motions are well-intentioned efforts to deal with the issues presented by this situation without dealing with the editors involved. While that approach is tempting and understandable, I believe that, as some have pointed out, that they might make things worse, promote tag-teaming and offsite canvassing, and constitute a failure to act if not worse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific views on the motions:

1. Appeals only to Arbcom: I see some merit to this. It can prevent bludgeoning of administrators who venture into the subject area.

2. Word limits: On the surface it seems to address the problem that we face of repetitive discussions and "IDONTHEARTHAT" bad faith hounding that can drag out discussions. But it is a process answer to a behavior issue.

3. Excluding involved participants. Again, a process answer to an editor behavior issues. Not all involved editors are creating problems, tag-teaming and so on. This "throws out the baby with the bathwater."

4. "Enforced BRD" Another process answer to an editor behavior issue, and I don't believe that it would have any positive impact on the subject area whatosever.

---Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased by default? I think that Amayorov has come up with an intriguing solution below: label the articles in this and other contentious topic areas as biased and unbalanced by default, "explicitly mark them as such to readers with an appropriate banner," and so on. I agree insofar as this topic area is concerned. Others, I do not know.

We are here because of a widespread belief, both on and off-wiki, that these articles are biased. Let's tell the public: "In this subject area, neutrality is not a given. Enter at your own risk." I think that would restore faith in the project that many do not have, or have lost. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich: Yes, one can argue that all articles in controversial subject areas will be viewed as biased by both sides of the controversies. That is certainly true with these articles. It is also true that these articles have the potential for bringing the project into disrepute. Is an article too pro-X? Is it too pro-Y? Is there canvassing by editors for X? Is there canvassing by editors for Y? Let's not be naive or sanguine. Canvassing is the elephant in the room. There is canvassing, without a doubt, by all parties in this and other controversial topic areas no matter what they are, in which the off-wiki fighting is intense and Wikipedia is just one area in a wide-ranging conflict. Wikipedia is not equipped to deal with such situations adequately. Hell we can't even keep the discussions civil. We have failed at that. Administrators have failed. Arbcom has failed. We, the editors, have failed. We need to admit that we haven't done a good job of keeping these articles free of bias. We need to concede that in these subject areas we cannot prevent bias from creeping into and even overwhelming articles. We need to say that loud and clear, without being mealy-mouthed or equivocal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amayorov

No sure if this has been raised already, but there is evidence circulating online of potential WP:TAGTEAMing and WP:CANVASSing by bad-faith editors from both sides. (Redacted) Here’s one example. Amayorov (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I previously posted, and which have since been redacted, reported that a group of editors had been coordinating using third-party tools (e.g. Discord) to fight “on the Wikipedia front the information battle for truth, peace and justice.” According to the articles, their activity included publishing how-to videos, organizing edits, and compiling lists of "work in progress" pages they aimed to modify.
As one published material that I referenced put it, "Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia. It’s a battleground for narratives." Amayorov (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A naive proposal: Would it be useful to treat all articles on specific contentious topics as biased and unbalanced by default, and explicitly mark them as such to readers with an appropriate banner? To remove this banner, we could introduce more stringent criteria requiring a wider consensus, including input from uninvolved editors. Articles that fail to pass these reviews would remain marked as "potentially biased". It would also be easier to re-introduce a banner if needed.

This approach would be less disruptive to the usual editing process, as the added rules would only relate to the article banner, while the content itself would continue to be edited according to the existing rules. Amayorov (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm not active in this area but I do see some serious issues with the Gaza Genocide page move. Part of this is the issue associated with very close/questionable closes being hard to change. This was an example where the !vote split was near 50/50 between the current title which reads as genocide is given, and the two alternatives which both made it clear this was an accusation/disputed claim. This is the sort of situation where a closer, while acting in good faith, can create issues with a questionable close. In this case, editors had good reason to question the close of POVTITLE grounds. However, with a basically 50/50 split between editors who were happy/unhappy with the move the review was closed as no-consensus. I feel in cases like this if we can't endorse the close then the close needs to be reverted (perhaps for a panel close). Note that this isn't specifically a problem for this topic area.

I would also suggest that within contentious topic areas it would be good to rule that POV neutrality is more important than ever. If Wikipedia is seen to be taking sides it undermines the credibility of the whole project. It also is more likely to create fights etc. I would encourage the committee to look not just at editor behavior but structural ways we can try to avoid these problem in the future. There are many good editors on both sides of this topic and even more who likely aren't on either side but who just want to do good work in this area. I think some rules based reforms vs finger pointing at editors might be helpful here. Springee (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

I wasn't intending to comment, but then I read #Motion 3: Involved participants as originally written by HJ Mitchell, which allows only uninvolved editors to vote. I believe this motion would greatly benefit sockpuppets and meatpuppets at the expense of experienced editors. starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A decision has now been rendered on the proposals (1, one of the 2s, 3 and 4). Shall we bring this matter to a close? starship.paint (RUN) 00:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice_regent

I'd like to request the admins below kindly consider "moderated discussion" as a way to achieve consensus, and consider Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion as a good example. The pre-RfC discussion involved some very lengthy analysis of sources. This is unavoidable given the volume of scholarship involved. But it was largely kept out of the RfC (WP:RFC/Jerusalem) itself. The RfC itself was orderly. And finally, it was closed by a panel with a detailed rationale.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on motions (VR)

Motion 4

HJ Mitchell and CaptainEek, with respect to Motion 4: Enforced BRD, I personally felt that this provision became fairly unworkable in the case of WP:ARBIRP. There was lots of very lengthy discussion on who reverted what (eg see this lengthy discussion and this request for clarification). In small discussions (2-4 people) this motion effectively gives every participant a veto, which leads to WP:STONEWALLING. Everything had to be resolved by RfCs, which take a month to discuss and then maybe another month to wait to be closed.

Can I suggest that this remedy be applied similar to 2b: i.e. imposed by an uninvolved admin on a particular article for a particular time period (eg. imposed on all edits to X recent event article for 30 days).VR (Please ping on reply) 15:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2

CaptainEek for motion 2c, can I suggest it only apply to RfCs for which a WP:RFCBEFORE has been given adequate time? I find most RMs don't have a pre-discussion done, so if a change is being proposed for the first time, it can take longer than 1,000 words to do sufficient source analysis.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness regarding Motion 4: Enforced BRD

This is a very bad idea because it will give editors the tool to lock out any material they dont like for any reason. They can then filibuster at the talkpage and make it virtually impossible to reinstate the material because "no consensus has been reached". Recently something very similar happened at the Golan Heights article where well sourced and relevant information was removed without any valid reason whatsoever. Certain editors will use this to disrupt articles within the area of conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Regarding a potential Motion 3b, maybe it is better to split the negatives from the motion? Maybe something like: Editors may designate themselves involved in the entire topic area or a subset of it, or may be designated by an uninvolved admin (on a user's talk page / by being logged at the Arbitration enforcement log). Designations by administrators may be appealed in the same way as sanctions. (Self-designations may be requested to be reviewed for removal after a year.) Designation is not a suggestion that an editor's contributions are problematic. Then a potential Motion 5 could go into restrictions in place on those involved, such as unable to close discussions, only one new discussion a day, twenty comment limit a day for talk pages under ARBPIA, 1RR limit, must have 2.5k edits to participate outside edit requests, any and all other suggestions, etc. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, Hydrangeans, L235, Nishidani, RAN1, and ToBeFree: Just to give a heads up, האופה (HaOfa) has resumed editing with 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike on the 29th and has submitted a statement above as of a couple of hours ago. (Pinging those who discussed האופה) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Regarding Motion 5, I would be more disappointed in a lack of a case than a case that doesn't have solutions for the future. The AE thread and this discussion has shown that there are multiple editors whose behavior and actions should be looked into, regardless of the attempts to try to fix the problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Pirate Wire looks a bit unreliable and there appears to be at least one false claim in that article as the March case they discuss was declined months ago for technical reasons, not 'still pending seven months later.' (Additionally, they seem to be very confused about how Arbitrators are elected.) Additionally, the Discord claims have been known for months now. That aside, any evidence of a group using Discord to coordinated edits should be brought to ArbCom's attention. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Seems that I've come here as this C&A is sunsetting. I am not sure about whether the motions will have an impact, but I imagine they are worth trying. Generally I agree with the comments made by Tryptofish, Swatjester and Number 57. I've reviewed the charts that have been proffered here, and I don't find them useful or probative of anything whatsoever. I suggest that the Committee go ahead, pass whatever you want to pass as motions, but also go ahead with a case as there is a need for one as the topic area needs help. I believe the source of the problems is that due to various reasons, the Wikipedia community as a whole has avoided this subject area. Thus the very basis of the project, which is the genius of crowds, has gone, and the result has been detrimental to both the community and the reader. These points were made early on by the three users I mentioned and others, but the point has been lost by the usual swamp of verbiage and deflection.Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amayorov afraid what you're suggesting would take the project off the hook in not just this case but in scores of contentious articles on every conceivable subject, whether officially designated as "contentious" or not. The project is an ongoing effort, and surrendering on that basic principle is inadvisable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness Not necessarily. If it has that effect, it can be put in reverse. I don't see the harm in trying to improve matters in these articles, even with a not-insignificant chance of failure. My guess is that the chance of failure if this BRD motion is passed is at least 50%. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the arbitrator comments, I may be wrong but it appears to me that a full case is not by any means off the table, and that the motions are not necessarily going to be a substtitute for a full case. It might be clarifying if the committee would formally vote up or down on that, with the arbs stating their reasons for or against the idea of opening a full case. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek As I said above, I see the virtue of at least attempting to bring order to the subject area by motions, even though I don't believe most would work and some may acdtually be harmful. But I do think arbcom has to do something unless it's clearly a bad idea. I think that the RS proposal, with a carve-out for "recent" events, is clearly a bad idea. What makes it so is that the reliability of the sourcing itself is a matter of contention. In the Zionism article, "the Bible" arose in this discussion, the reaction to which was so vociferous that the editor who raised the issue was blocked. Not taking sides in that particular discussion, in which I was not involved, it's plain that what is and is not a reliable source was not really the issue in that discussion. The editor simply raised the Zionist roots as being in antiquity and that Zionism is implicit in religious observances and in the history of the Jewish people. Editors need some freedom and leeway in discussing these fraught subjects. Therefore I would point to that discussion not as a reason to impose an RS restriction but rather to not impose one. And the carve-out for recent events makes little sense. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Levivich clarifying what he means by "recent events" and his sourcing idea generally regarding use of contemporary newspapers etc. as pertains to historical events. This is I think not a constructive idea, and would unduly handcuff editors in sourcing articles. We have a fine array of contemporary sources available through the Wikipedia Library and we should use more of them, not less, subject of course to discussion as to their appropriateness, rather than hand down a blanket prohibition. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, you may very well be right (re Balfour etc.) and I'm not going to argue the point here. But those who would (not here but in the relevant locations) should not feel that doing so means crossing a red line if they cite sources on a banned list, or that if they stray from say the Journal of Palestine Studies on matters relative to 1948 that they are going to be topic-banned. We simply can't have that kind of heavy-handed and unwarranted restriction. The idea is to bring editors into this topic area not to repel them. Now as for the editor in question, who I alluded to concerning that discussion, he was initially blocked for two months, which was converted to a block from editing the Zionism article or contributing to its talk page for two months. This is an extremely serious penalty, far worse than I usually see doled out on AE after lengthy discussions, and we don't even have the kind of restriction being advocated here. We don't want good-faith editors walking on eggshells. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

Motion 2b would be clearer if the two kinds of restrictions suggested there were sorted into either page restrictions or editor restrictions. Particularly, whether "all participants" is a page restriction as I believe is intended. Izno (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

(Comment moved from below, regarding to motion No. 4) This appears to be functionally equivalent to the Consensus Required restriction that's already available. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I second Levivich's suggestion that a RS consensus required restriction would be a helpful tool. These weren't new editors trying to source to dictionaries, the Bible, and Wikipedia. All had thousands of edits; one had 100K+ edits. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ïvana needs to be added to any case. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding word-limit restrictions: I think a limit per discussion will unduly hamper the ability for discussion to reach a conclusion. Earlier participants will no longer be able to work towards a greater common understanding as they hit their limits. For longer discussions, the set of editors able to comment will keep shifting. Also managing the word count would be time consuming. I suggest having a moderated round-robin discussion phase, possibly with word limits per contributor in each discussion round, would help manage discussions from being swamped by some editors and enable more people to be heard from, while still allowing earlier participants to continue to contribute. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding suggestions from third parties: I don't know if the arbitrators have considered the idea of using round-robin discussion phases that I suggested. The obvious drawback of course is the need to have a moderator to decide when the next round starts and when the process can productively end. If this can be done, though, I think it has the potential to streamline discussion, thus making it more efficient and effective. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (PIA4.5)

I have a nomenclature suggestion and some comments on the proposed remedies. I propose that the remedies that will be implemented, which are not a PIA5 case, but build on PIA4, be referred to in short as PIA4.5.

I haven't edited in the subject area, partly because it is so contentious, and I didn't comment earlier on the AE referral, because I thought that there were at least two reasonable alternatives for ArbCom, a PIA5 case, or guidance to Arbitration Enforcement administrators. I see that ArbCom is planning to give stronger tools to administrators, which I concur with. Proposal 1, appeals only to ArbCom, is a good idea. I would suggest that ArbCom strengthen it with advice that administrators use it frequently, and advice that administrators use the topic and site ban hammers frequently, with appeals only to ArbCom.

Giving administrators the power to impose word limits is an excellent idea, better than trying to have one size fit all.

I don't think that any rule against bludgeoning is necessary, because bludgeoning is tendentious editing, which is already sanctioned. However, guidance to administrators to use both word limits and the ban hammers against editors who bludgeon or filibuster is a good idea.

Ensure that administrators know that ArbCom will back them up, and that they are encouraged to deal strongly with difficult editors, as PIA4.5.Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I dislike broad word limits because they make it difficult to analyze sources in-depth. In the G&K paper on Wikipedia's (alleged) distortion of the Holocaust [58], word count restrictions made it impossible to quote sources and argue about what they were saying.

An editor can also say "this source says 'x'" in 4+ words and I might spend 50 words explaining exactly how it doesn't. I've had this happen to me in a recent WP:RSN discussion on The Telegraph, where I was both criticized for posting a wall of text in rebuttal to a much shorter !vote and commended for analyzing sources in a way the original comment didn't.

Hard word counts make it easy to waste someone else's word count on a rebuttal by throwing a bunch of sources into the discussion at once.

We should enforce stricter threading and discussion organization like how ArbCom splits evidence from proposals. Word limits can be applied to the main discussion and relaxed in ancillary sections related to sourcing. Alternatively an editor can be given the chance to hat/collapse sections of their own comments so as not to violate word count restrictions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Do you foresee word limits being imposed before a discussion begins, or afterwards?
If word limits are expected to be justified by admins based on discussion, there's a first-mover advantage for those that get in a lot of words first. Administrative action could be seen as a punishment or advantage to a certain side.
Pre-emptive word limits would be more neutral. There's a trend on wiki towards having a WP:RFCBEFORE (pre-RfC discussion) for especially contentious RfCs, and the motion should be interpreted to make word count restrictions something that can imposed ahead of time. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This case is getting picked up by media outlets now.[59] It is shocking to me that there is documented evidence of off wiki coordination on Discord from pro-Palestinian editors and the "resident Wikipedia expert" is not being examined here.
ArbCom's mandate includes original jurisdiction over non-public evidence. You cannot delegate this authority to the community per foundation:Resolution: Access to nonpublic data. You need to hold a case to demonstrate that you've seen the evidence and are choosing to do nothing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrangeans: I'm more concerned that editors not mentioned in this case have been linked to a Discord server where they coordinated editing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrevan

If I'm not allowed to leave this comment here, please remove it. The problem is not too many words, but which words. Civility is a first-class citizen in our policy and extends to insinuating a political motivation without evidence, something that happens all too frequently, not to mention other forms of WP:NPA such as questioning whether someone read the link, questioning their knowledge or credentials, or other types of ad hominem. Sadly, a low tolerance for this type of behavior is not enforced. Some editors and even admins at times, routinely get away with improper attacks, biting newbies and assuming bad faith. Wikipedia is emphatically supposed to be friendly and forgiving, but in this topic area that seems to be ignored. To quote a 2023 study in the peer-reviewed open-access journal PNAS Nexus, "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia. The effects of toxic comments are potentially even greater in the long term, as they are associated with a significantly increased risk of editors leaving the project altogether. Using an agent-based model, we demonstrate that toxicity attacks on Wikipedia have the potential to impede the progress of the entire project. Our results underscore the importance of mitigating toxic speech on collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia to ensure their continued success." [1] Andre🚐 21:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the recent comments show the problems with accusations of bad faith, propaganda, WP:ASPERSIONs without diffs and so on that richly characterize this topic area, not to mention self-indulgent WP:TEXTWALL and substituting one's own opinion for a balanced, WP:NPOV of reliable source material, including Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. Everyone has blind spots and makes mistakes, present company included, but some people have trouble moderating their worst impulses, which contributes to the inappropriate communication and WP:BATTLEGROUND environment. Anyway, since someone mentioned me, if you add me as a party I expect you to triple my current salary, and I want to be able to use the company car on weekends, and expense my Grubhubs. Also, regarding the HJ Mitchell suggestion: We may well end up removing some of the more prominent participants from the topic area but I don't envisage that having much effect—the most likely scenario is that they are simply replaced by other editors and everything continues much as it was because this is an emotive topic area not short of editors with strong, heartfelt opinions held in good faith but vehemently opposed by others with different opinions held equally strongly and in equally good faith. We can't solve the real-life Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia I think this is an insightful point. We can't solve the problem, and if some of the worst repeat actors are dealt with, that conflict will continue to rage on. However, one person does make a difference. We all know those people who have an outsize impact on their work or their collaborators. If we actually dealt with and enforced the standard rules of decorum, while we'd still have plenty of agitation on each side, we could do it civilly and respectfully and actually create some amount of balance and fair play. I do believe it's not a pipe dream. So whether it's a long-time, magisterial 100k+ edits editor making personal attacks or a fresh new, maybe-sock account making a naive and good-faith comment, why can't we just enforce the rules and not grant infinite strikes to bad actors? Andre🚐 23:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with Tryptofish. Andre🚐 23:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smirnov, Ivan; Oprea, Camelia; Strohmaier, Markus (2023). "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia". PNAS Nexus. pp. pgad385. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385. PMC 10697426. PMID 38059265. Retrieved 2024-10-05.

Statement by Mikeblas

 Clerk note: Split from § Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS above. Please remember to comment in your own section :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) This should be done site-wide. But who would review them? What happens when they're not accurate? What if there's a dispute about accuracy or interpretation?
2) Seems like this would lead to gaming -- racing to thirty by making trivial edits all over, cosmetic changes that are kind of disruptive and spammy. Build bots to do it, sell the pre-confirmed accounts at auction. This has happened with practically every other site with whatever "scoring" mechanism is used.
These don't seem like particularly helpful suggestions to me. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ïvana

It has been brought to my attention that I've been mentioned here, directly and indirectly, so I think it's necessary for me to respond (not sure if this is the right place to do so, please remove this if I'm wrong).

I briefly joined an off-wiki group at the beginning of the year. I volunteered to help newcomers/people interested in WP, mostly answering basic questions. There are plenty of places that offer that kind of help, including WP itself (I usually just referred people to the policy or guideline related to their question, or to the existing tutorials uploaded here). These people were, again, just getting started, so they couldn't participate in the I/P topic even if they wanted to. I was never a recruiter, I just offered some guidance to whoever asked. I did that for a couple of months and eventually stopped because of time constraints. The project at that point was pretty much dead anyways since the person responsible for it was inactive due to family matters. It was closed shortly after I left (months ago) due to doxxing.

There is a table in WP (which I didn't create) showing precisely what kind of activities the group was involved with. It is not different from sections of any given Wiki project which are public calls for the creation of articles, to do lists, etc. The table just offered easy edits for newcomers. The vast majority of the items were non I/P; the few that can be considered part of the topic were just added as a sort of watchlist by the owner of the list (not sure why cause thats what the actual watchlist is for, but that was the explanation I was given back then). Some had notes referring to missing information that should be added, but nothing was done. There were no linked discussions or anything alluding to building consensus or artificially manufacture it, the entries were low level edits looking to add content to some articles like universities, BLPs, etc. Non ECR editors cannot edit in the I/P topic anyway, so what would sending them there accomplish? I myself constantly revert them from those pages all the time, whether I agree with them or not (as a side note, I don't understand why those pages are not automatically restricted). There was also a section dedicated to creating articles for books. All draft submissions are reviewed by an uninvolved editor anyway, I never used my privileges to move them to mainspace. I wasn't involved there apart from occasionally answering basic questions. I created some templates detailing policies and guidelines related to the creation of articles and deleted them later because of safety concerns; I didn't wanna have them here anymore opening the possibility of random people using them and discovering that they could email me/write on my talk page, because some threatened to and are actively trying to dox me and I received intimidatory messages.

Meatpuppetry and collaboration are two different things, and the latest is not against the rules. In all my years here I have never been accused of being uncivil, disruptive, etc. I have only received two (informal?) warnings relatively recently on my talk page when I inadvertently went against 1RR, and I self-reverted immediately. I make sure to participate in discussions whenever necessary to build consensus. Obviously I have a bias and so does everyone here; I never claimed to be objective. Still, I try my best to provide factual based perspectives backed by sources instead of relying on inflammatory comments, personal views, or doing a mere "I agree with x editor" and nothing more.

I would like to point out that the pro Israel bloggers, journalists, twitter accounts, etc are the ones blatantly demanding canvassing and mass edits against consensus (those articles immediately get vandalized, wasting everyone's time), on top of singling out and harrassing editors, saying anyone that doesn't follow their narrative is “pro-Hamas” (or in my case, a Russian asset) or talking about a “regime” controlling Wikipedia. It's hard to take these accusations seriously when they are prefaced with that kind of language. I'm not even offended by it anymore, I just think it's funny. Am I a pro Hamas agent backed by both Iran and Russia and part of a foreign cell looking to radicalize WP? Guess we'll never know!

Lastly, I will address the accusation that has been mentioned most often in connection with my name: tag teaming/canvassing. In a topic like I/P there are actually not a lot of editors that participate regularly. People come and go and maybe a couple dozen or so known faces remain. Overlaps are bound to happen. I have also noticed editors that seem to be drawn to discussions as a pair or group. Is that evidence of tag teaming/canvassing? Not necessarily. We all monitor the same pages. My watchlist is useless (+1.5k items) so I sometimes check out other editors' contributions to see if I missed something. I think it would be more suspicious to intentionally go out of your way to avoid interacting with someone, especially since we all pretty much rotate between the same pages. I have probably interacted with the majority of the people mentioned here at some point.

Not sure what else is there to say. Apologies for the length. - Ïvana (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scharb

Response to statement by Ïvana
Who else participated in this group? Scharb (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivana's statement, I briefly joined an off-wiki group at the beginning of the year. I volunteered to help newcomers/people interested in WP, mostly answering basic questions. must be taken as a confession to a serious WP:STEALTH violation committed by a group called Tech for Palestine, and it corroborates the (biased but verifiable) infractions documented by Piratewires.
I hope the arbiters were able to see the Wiki for Palestine video before it was made private, as it was the strongest evidence. It instructed users how to game the system to acquire extended-confirmed and correct great wrongs, and was brazenly at odds with the spirit and mission of Wikipedia. It appears to be the project of limited-purpose public figure, [Avigail Abarbanel], a professional organizer for the activist group JVP ($3m annual budget) and contributor to not-RS Mondoweiss and [not-RS Electronic Intifada], whose talking points English IAP Wikipedia now more closely resemble than the similar articles on other languages of Wikipedia.
There is no reason why a group of 40 people should be contributing more than 90% of text to the vast majority of articles on a controversial subject, resulting in poor and biased content, and drowning out all other input. It's completely against Wikipedia's principles. Their collective one million contributions have made this part of Wikipedia worse, not better. There are many English-speakers who now use autotranslations of German or French Wikipedia articles to get their information about IAP, because the bias is so infamous.
If the statistical claims can be independently verified, indicating a major WP:STEALTH violation, then it must be acted on decisively to preserve Wikipedia's spirit.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying sets a clear precedent. Scharb (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes


Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator motions

Trying something different to see if we can break the deadlock without spending months on a case. I think we can have concise community feedback on individual motions to help with readability. These are all without prejudice to a case, now or at a later date. I'm also open to other ideas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have seen these motions and am considering them along with all of the feedback from the community. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. More than happy to give AE another tool in the toolkit. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I wouldn't support making all appeals to ArbCom by default, but if this takes some of the workload off of AE or gives admins cover to make unpopular but necessary decisions, I'm happy to take on some of that burden. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. More options for AE, Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2a: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 500 words per discussion.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
  1. I don't think an automatic 500 word limit would be beneficial. - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In favour of 2c. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. prefer 2c ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC) prefer 2b[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Seems reasonable. There is many a discussion where an editor goes on to bludgeon a conversation by dint of replying endlessly and exhausting a books worth of words. Since bludgeoning can be quite hard to handle, I think a wordlimit is a useful tool that can be imposed on editors for whom that has been a problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I prefer this slightly more targeted approach over blanket word limits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I don't think a broad word limit that is implemented by default is the most effective way to deal with issues, there is benefit in allowing uninvolved administrators to implement this as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think admin discretion is best instead of trying to preempt it. Some discussion might need more or less words. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain


Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. As I say below, given the alarm bells being rung above, and the threat of PIA5, I think we have to consider drastic measures. I have added a sunset clause because I really do think this is an extreme measure that shouldn't be in effect in perpetuity. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Okay, I think this might be the most useful proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:BLUDGEONing discussions with too many words helps nobody. And this is a topic area which is already drowning in excess words. Keep it concise. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Even with a sunset provision, a word restriction across the entire area of conflict is not something that should be done by default. - Aoidh (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer admin to set the limits, not us. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 3: Involved participants

Editors designated "involved" in the area of conflict may not register a bolded vote in formal discussions but may offer opinions and are encouraged to offer sources. Editors may designate themselves involved in the entire topic area or a subset of it, or may be designated by an uninvolved admin. Designations by administrators may be appealed in the same way as sanctions. Designation is not a suggestion that an editor's contributions are problematic.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
  1. While I understand the intention behind this, in practice I don't think this would improve anything in the CTOP area. - Aoidh (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ideally, the bold formatting has no effect anyway and it's all about the arguments. Restricting the use of formatting does not reduce (but perhaps increase) the amount of words people use to explain their position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no register of whom is involved --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That would only drive away the existing editors, some of whom are quite valuable in the topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. Editors who are involved need to voice their opinion. Otherwise, this will create more arguments, socking, and other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per above Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 4: Enforced BRD

Where a recent edit within the area of conflict is reverted for a substantive reason, it may not be reinstated by any editor until a discussion on the talk page reaches a consensus. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended-confirmed requirement are excluded from this requirement. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
I understand this will slow the topic area down and be a general barrier to editing. But given the alarm bells being rung above, and the threat of PIA5, I think we have to consider drastic measures. I'd also vote for a time limited version of this; i.e., with a sunset clause of a year, and we'd have to renew it or just let it return to the status quo ante. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth trying for 2 years --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I will likely support any tweaks and changes to clarify "recent". Primefac (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes this will slow editing down (though I hope admins will exercise common sense when it comes to honest mistakes) but to a certain extent that's what we want. Reducing the urgency might help to lower the temperature. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are important to me, and as "reverting" includes the restoration of content where verifiability is disputed, I can't support this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:ToBeFree makes a good point. That this as written could be used to circumvent Wikipedia:Verifiability is a very valid concern. - Aoidh (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with TBF. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per TBF Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Given that community voices strongly feel this is a bad idea, I remove my earlier support. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Eek --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Having looked through what has been discussed so far, this seems to be warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that I think the party list could be improved, and that the timing could be better (a thing partially in our control), per all my other statements here I think a case is necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't think a case would be likely enough to have a more helpful result than the motions above, but it is almost guaranteed to require the parties and the committee to spend an unreasonable amount of time on reaching that result. And at the end of the case, the committee would be investing a lot of thoughts and discussions into presenting something else than "we didn't find a real solution" to the community, mostly unsuccessfully. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd like to see how the motions above work out before diving into a case. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I am genuinely not sure what new remedies can come about from PIA5 that have not already been tried, or proposed above, but there is clearly an appetite from the community to hold a full case. I will of course participate if a case is run, but I do not feel strongly enough about not holding a case to stand in the way of my colleagues and the opinions of those who have commented above. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Invaluable22

Southasianhistorian8

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Southasianhistorian8

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 00:22, 2024 October 26 Raises temperature of an existing talk page discussion discussion with multiple personal attacks, accuses me of "preemptive[ly] poisoning the well", of "nearing WP:BULLYING conduct" and "trying to muffle Indian viewpoints and opinions".
  2. 00:38, 2024 October 26 Ignores WP:ONUS to restore content that was removed without first getting consensus to restore the content. Continues the "muzzle" PA against me in the edit summary.
  3. 01:39, 2024 October 26 Second revert in an hour, reverts my attempt at a compromise with further personal attacks/WP:ABF in the edit summary about my motives ("and intentionally caricutrarizing [sic] his quote".
  4. 01:41, 2024 October 26 Gives me a level-4 (!) template further accusing my attempt at compromise as "WP:POINTy" (aka disruptive editing).
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 20:47, 2022 May 30 Indeff'd for abusing multiple accounts in the area of conflict as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8/Archive. Unblocked in December 2022 following a standard offer.
  2. 19:06, 2021 November 11 48hrs for edit warring in the area of conflict.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SAH appears to have little to no good faith towards me, making PAs and airing old dirty laundry in an article talk page discussion which prior to their arrival had remained focused on content(Permlink to version of talk page prior SAH posting). They take issue with my use of the phrases "sour grapes" and "cherry picked" when referring to content in my edit summaries, but then turn around and make PAs and aspersions in theirs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm here because I don't know how else to respond to "repeated-PAs-on-CTOP-article-talkpage-into-level-4-template" and if the statement in defense of evidence of PAs being made is to exceed their wordcount entirely on the other party, then that is pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing on this project. SAH's ignores their own behaviour entirely, bringing up misassumptions about stale behaviour, either twisting my words or outright fabricating them.

but you omit that you copied content that I had written in that article into Khalistan movement without attribution,[84] so I don't know why you're all of a sudden questioning my sincerity in there? - I restored content rather than adding it for the first time which I believed I had.[85]

"Ghost, in his own words..." not only is this stale, this is an outright lie. For it to be "in my words" I'd have to have actually said the alleged statement, which I did not nor did I even attempt to infer.
Reporting an unsolicited apology is a low blow, doubly so that it's stale.
SAH also accuses others of POV-pushing[86], so mentioning here about my general comment on how "pro-India skewing" should be a PA doesn't seem fair. They also call out others for not heeding WP:ONUS[87] so their failure to do so themself tonight is also dubious. These two diffs also happen to have both occurred at Khalsa, where SAH was trying to restore content critical of that Sikh community.
I believe, given the above information that a topic ban from Sikhism, the Khalistan movement and related topics, broadly construed for SAH be considered. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]


Discussion concerning Southasianhistorian8

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Southasianhistorian8

This is a completely unnecessary escalation, which I believe to be an extension of Ghost's firm convictions that Wikipedia ought to amplify pro-Canadian narratives and vitiate Canada's opponents. The bizarre thing about this conflict is that I'm a Canadian citizen myself, and have been living in Canada for over 95% of my life. My stance is that Wikipedia should not overtly amplify/muzzle pro-Canadian or pro-Indian narratives respectively, but neutrally explain both sides' arguments.

I also suspect that the last diff was GhostofDanGurney trying to bait me into reverting what was an obviously bad edit, so he could entrap me and report me. The diffs above are the tip of the iceberg, but I believe it is demonstrably obvious that GhostofDanGurney is far, far too aggressive and juvenile for Wikipedia.

Ghost has once again levied a false allegation against me, claiming that I copied content written by him on Hardeep Singh Nijjar to the Khalistan movement-This is an outright and outrageous lie. The paragraph starting with "According to a Globe and Mail report published one year after Nijjar's death," was my own summary of the Globe report, it was not written by Ghost. I was the one who originally added the following content to the Nijjar page right after the Globe came out-"The report further claims that some Canadian security experts did not believe India's claims about him, remarking that there was inadequate evidence to arrest Nijjar and that India had a "reputation for torqueing evidence to fit with political objective". This was done well before GhostofDanGurney's modifications.
Ghost is basically trying to kick me off a topic area where I've helped counter vandalism and POV pushing for the past 2 years, all because I disagreed with him and objected to his persistent personal attacks and rude edit summaries. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, June comes before July, no? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srijanx22

Canada–India diplomatic row has been created just today and needs improvement. The highlighted disputes should be handled on the talk page without either of the users commenting on each other. It would be better if they can get along. I don't see any need for sanctions as of yet. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Southasianhistorian8

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

DangalOh

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — xDanielx T/C\R 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
1 month block; see this thread on user's talk page.
Administrator imposing the sanction
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
2024-10-27

Statement by IdanST

I was blocked for 1 month. I was not aware of the edits on which the admin ScottishFinnishRadish based the violations leading to this block because the admin failed to inform me. However, after a couple of weeks, I recently saw a comment by the same admin stating that the edits leading to the block "were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations."

I appeal on this block because I believe these were justified edits because:

  1. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out on a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The article presents Yahya Sinwar as the political head and Mohammed Deif as the military head, but for the opposing side, only Colonels are listed. Senior military officers like Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, General Yaron Finkelman, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi , all of whom participated, were omitted. I didn’t even include the political head, Benjamin Netanyahu. The admin deleted this edit request and used it, along with two other edits, as grounds for blocking me while violating WP:NPOV and WP:ADMINACCT.
  2. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's basically similiar to the first edit (request) under WP:ECR Section A.1., just in a reply in the "Talk" section, only this time I've added the political figures "defence minister Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu", in contrast with the political Hamas head Yahya Sinwar. However, I acknowledge that maybe these suggestions were not very comprehensive and clear and I'll try to improve my editing.
  3. This edit: violation WP:ECR. I'll explain the background. Beforehand I've left a barnstar on this user as it's allowed, and even encouraged, under WP:BARN: "Remember, any user can give out Barnstars! You do not have to be an administrator!". Then, the same admin deleted my message ("reason: WP:ECR") and included that in a previous block for 1 week. Now, the same admin deleted this message and stating, again, "reason: WP:ECR". I've read ECR rules and there is no statement forbidding users with fewer than 500 edits from leaving messages or barnstars on others’ talk pages.

In conclusion, I strongly believe these 3 edits were justified.

Regardless of this appeal, I want to apologize to ScottishFinnishRadish for my behavior on my own talk page. I should not have acted that way, violating WP:NPA and being unprofessional. My belief that I was wrongly blocked, combined with the admin’s failure to specify my violations, does not excuse my behavior, and for that, I apologize. IdanST (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from IdanST's talk by request:
-Reply to xDanielx comment-
"Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. — xDanielx"
This was not appealed at AN. What I appealed at AN was the 1-week block, which I appealed after it expired, and it had nothing to do with the current 1-month block. IdanST (talk) 4:07 am, Today (UTC−4)Reply
-Reply to CoffeeCrumbs comment-
"There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request"
I have replied regarding all violations that SFR stated were the cause of the 1-month block.
"Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support"
I have not appealed the 1-month block anywhere until now, at AE.
Valereee (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Included in that first edit that I reverted was this, which is a plain ECR violation. As for the initial edit, WP:ER says Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. As they were already blocked for ECR violations I would have expected them to familiarize themselves with the expectations of making edit requests. If not followed up by a clear ECR violation I would likely have left the initial edit as a good-faith borderline case. The barnstar is clearly a violation, and leaving the same barnstar for the same editor was part of the reason for the first block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I blocked them for a week for ECR violations on October 4th, and then for a month on October 13th for further violations. Both times Doug Weller pulled their TPA for personal attacks. [113] They said during the AN appeal I want to clarify that I appealed the first block. I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. I'm not sure if this was an elaborate ruse to get two bites at the apple for appealing, or just unfamiliarity with our processes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by xDanielx

Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. Edit: seems IdanST's intention was to appeal the initial 1-week block at AN, though others understood it as appealing the 1-month block. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor CoffeeCrumbs

I don't think this is even a close thing. There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request. I don't see the WP:BARN argument as having any merit either because WP:ECR doesn't claim to be an exhaustive list of the contexts in which a non-ECR editor is not allowed to discuss the topic; the controlling language is all pages and articles related to the topic area, with exceptions being noted, not inclusions. Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support and the filer wasn't that far from seeing increased restrictions based on the appeal, I'd recommend the filer retract their appeal while it's still only a month. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filer insists the previous AN appeal was of the one week block, but the linked AN appeal is clearly of a one-month block and filed on October 22. The one-week block expired nearly two weeks before the 22nd (the 11th). There appears to be a bit of either lawyering or disorganization; the filer appealed the judgment of the second block and the second block's conclusion but talked about the evidence of the moot first block, but the supporting evidence that led to the second block was presented and evaluated by the commnunity as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor berchanhimez

The first edit linked to, while not ideal per WP:EDITXY, is pretty clearly an edit request. The inferred request is "remove these people who are not of general rank from the list". To penalize an editor for a mere procedural issue in how they formatted their edit request seems to be heavy handed and non-constructive - as a similar example, would someone be penalized for making a well-thought out, sourced, and non-controversial edit request just because they didn't use the edit request template to make their talk page post? I hope not - so I would support giving this editor the benefit of the doubt on the first edit that they were trying to comply with the restriction and thought that pointing out a discrepancy/inaccuracy counted as an edit request.

Edits 2 and 3 are clearly against the ECR, however. Edit 2 is clear engagement in discussion that did not amount to making an edit request or clarifying a reasonable edit request the person previously made in compliance with ECR (such as adding a source or offering an alternative wording upon request). Edit 3 is not permitted by exceptions in ECR and the appellant seems to be trying to rely on other policies to attempt to justify the barnstar award. The confusion is somewhat understandable, but upon thought such understanding falls apart - in any other situation where there is a conflict between two requirements of equal stature (real life law, for example), people must abide by the stricter applicable requirement.

But it's unimportant to know that. What's important is that they've shown through their edits that they're unable to contribute constructively in this area - both through inability to wait until they're extended-confirmed before contributing, as well as through their incivility, accusations of propaganda, and other edits whether they were edit requests or not. There's a clear solution here - an indefinite topic ban that cannot be appealed until the editor is extended confirmed and such appeal will almost certainly fail unless they edit in other areas of the encyclopedia constructively first. This gives the user a clear cut rule - do not edit related to the Israel-Palestine conflict anywhere on Wikipedia - at all, while also giving them the opportunity to gain experience and show the community that, eventually, (at a minimum) after they're extended confirmed, they may be given a second chance to return to this topic area. I'm unsure if there's precedent for basically "increasing" a sanction at an AE appeal, but if the user is willing to agree to an enforced topic ban and abide by it, I would support removing the block and allowing them a chance to show they will abide by the topic ban rather than forcing them to wait a month (or the time remaining) then begin doing that. I support a topic ban regardless - otherwise the user will likely shoot themselves in the foot trying to edit in the topic area after their block expires. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by IdanST

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Your statement tells me you do not yet understand what the block was about. If you haven't, please read WP:GAB. You aren't likely to convince people you should be unblocked if you don't understand the reason you were blocked, and from the diffs you provided it seems clear you don't. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting IdanST has requested via email three days to allow them time to clarify. They've posted a couple of clarifications on their talk, which I will copy over. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Mhorg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Special:PermanentLink/1253900233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg, thanks for getting into my edits. The LeMonde issue was discussed and resolved here Talk:Stepan Bandera#Le Monde an unreliable source. You, too, replied in this section, which means you saw the issue was resolved, and it was not that I claimed that LeMonde is unreliable.
Which makes your One of the most recent was when they removed Le Monde with the reason "No reliable source",[46] triggering Ymblanter's response:[47] "next time you call Le Monde an unreliable source I will open a topic ban request" accusation an intentionally false accusation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307#Mhorg
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 28 October 2024 returns contested edit
  2. 28 October 2024 again
  3. 4 October 2024 tendentious edit and WEIGHT violation, source has just a passing mention of a subject and the editor puts that into the lead
  4. 10 September 2024 POV pushing, downgrades academic conclusion published in 2022, gives preference to facts from 2014 research, news reports, adds quote meant to mean something
  5. 14 October 2024 returns contested edit with "get consensus first in tp" comment
  6. 2 September 2024 "anti-government" is not in source
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307#Mhorg First. Mhorg is indefinitely topic banned from Lyudmyla Denisova, very broadly construed. There is a fairly clear consensus that BLP violations took place and there is too much bias for Mhorg to edit this topic in a neutral fashion. This means you need to completely avoid this person and any section of an article that even incidentally mentions her. This also means you may not discuss her, mention her, or refer to her, in any way. Breaching this will likely result in blocks and/or wider topic bans. Second, there will be a formal logged warning for the entire subject area "Eastern Europe". This is a bit against my better judgement, as I think an indef topic ban is the better way to go, but this formal warning should be seen as an absolute last chance. Any violations of policy in this area, no matter how minor, will be justification for any admin to indefinitely topic ban you from the entire area, without requiring a report at WP:AE. I would suggest you self-impose a 1RR restriction and use the talk page more before editing. It is my hope you will get the message and find a way to be less biased in your editing.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tendentious editing, edit warring. Do we need more diffs?
User talk:Mhorg#October 2024
Special:PermanentLink/1158190670#June 2023
Special:PermanentLink/1158190670#March 2023

In discussion, appeals using their personal opinion Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20240923111300-Genabab-20240919094400 , uses a strawman and makes assumption about opponents behaviors Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028083600-Manyareasexpert-20241028071000 . Ignores previous arguments and demands an approach contrary to WP:CONS Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028123700-Manyareasexpert-20241028104100 .


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:PermanentLink/1253900233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion


Discussion concerning Mhorg

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mhorg

1&2 are are my attempt to recover content from other users, as the user wanted to remove any source stating that the Azov had not depoliticised. Here[114] they removed the statement of Efraim Zuroff (in april 2022) with the motivation: "Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement". Consider that there is a large section on Azov Brigade[115] itself where this debate is described, which is still open. The user decided, despite all sources to the contrary, that the debate is over.

3 is the statement of Merezhko, deputy for the Servant of the People and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Accusations made by members of the government against the Ukrainian extreme right. I think it is important enough to be mentioned in "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

4 The user first in June 2024 reversed the meaning of the stable article "Commemoration of Stepan Bandera" by inserting his text in the first line of the lede.[116] I added, months later,[117] some context: chronologically the condemnation of the Ukrainian Jewish groups against the rehabilitation of OUN and UPA and the scandal of Bandera's words quoted by the Ukrainian parliament (a scandal in Israel[118] and a diplomatic confrontation with the Polish leadership[119]). Both reported by Haaretz.

6, Bumaga is a well-known[120] Russian anti-government journal.

The user has already had several problems with other users and also administrators. One of the most recent was when they removed Le Monde with the reason "No reliable source",[121] triggering Ymblanter's response:[122] "next time you call Le Monde an unreliable source I will open a topic ban request". The user opens a discussion where they justifies themselves.[123] Ymblanter rightly replies that they should have put that justification as edit summary and that "no reliable sources" was not acceptable, confirming the issue. Now the user is saying that I am falsely accusing them.--Mhorg (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I don't think there is a more clear example of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor in this topic area than Mhorg, unfortunately despite numerous warnings and even official administrator action, parroting Russian propaganda and talking points is the most important thing to this editor, and they are more than willing to break policy to do so, mostly by misrepresenting sources and edit warring. This has been going on for years, so at this point an eastern Europe topic ban is the only sensible solution to prevent them from further damaging the project. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mhorg

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Nableezy

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:PIA4

I'm asking for civility. An RFC remaining at the status quo is not gaming the system. That is standard procedure. Accusing me of tendentious and disruptive editing is not appropriate. I am simply making normal edits and am not alone. It's an open dispute and I followed the advice of SFR in opening an RFC. That Snowstormfigorion happened to revert beforehand is not gaming the system, it's a classic "wrong version," and wiki veterans should know better. I don't see that I should simply put up with being accused falsely and aspersions cast in bad faith. See the discussion at the 1948 war talk page. See the history of the 1948 war article. The material was removed by several editors and restored by several editors. There's currently no consensus on what to do. It was suggested by SFR that I start an RFC which I did so. Nableezy accuses me of tendentious editing, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. I left a message on his talk page and on SFR's talk page and he did not clarify or modify his aspersions. Andre🚐 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Nableezy below, no. Starting a new RFC on a different article, as SFR suggested and confirmed [124], is not improper. WP:CCC, but in this case it's long-standing content that was in the article for years and the RFC being referred to was on a different article. It is not mentioned at all in the policy or guidelines on disruptive editing or tendentious editing, or gaming at all. I made a total of 12 reverts to that article [edited Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], started an RFC and had discussion. Please explain how any of this is described by any behavioral guideline. It's incivil accusations and doubling down on it. Andre🚐 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Barkeep's message, I agree with the point - a child article could have something DUE that isn't DUE at the parent. I would argue it does in this case. I would also argue that it's not terribly relevant to the civility of accusations of tendentious editing and disruptive editing, though. How could I be guilty of those charges with the record of editing to that article? I restored the material oncetwice separated by 7 days [edited Andre🚐 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], and then I started the RFC at SFR's prompting. Even if Nableezy were right on the merits, which he isn't, an uninvolved admin said I should start the RFC so I did. How can this be gaming the system? Andre🚐 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WRT Huldra's message, the 2nd revert by Nableezy was his revert of me removing my post. Since he removed my reply and then I removed my entire post but he reverted that restoring my post. And yes I guess the diffs are slightly out of order but that shouldn't really matter since they are timestamped. That was not intentional, I suppose I can correct the order, shouldn't be too difficult. Andre🚐 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I believe I fixed the diff order. Nableezy, if you agree that starting the RFC wasn't disruptive or tendentious or gaming, then nothing I did was gaming. The standard procedure is that when an RFC runs, you don't edit the part under RFC. Isn't it? Or has that changed? Things change all the time but last I checked, that is officially how things work. Andre🚐 22:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, one of your diffs is not a "new post" but a removal of the post. I did not post after being told repeatedly not to. The only reason why I posted at nableezy's page at all was to seek to resolve the dispute and clarify it before bringing it here. "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." It is suggested to attempt to resolve disputes with users before escalating them which I have attempted in good faith to do. Andre🚐 22:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, how am I selectively reading SFR's message? If there's no consensus the status quo remains, per NOCON. I do not have more than one revert. I had 1 revert to Nableezy's talk, removing my whole post. I didn't revert to restore. Please look again. Andre🚐 22:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I had two total reverts to 1948 separated by 7 days [125] [126], that's my mistake. Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, I posted one more clarifying question since Nableezy referred to SFR's message and I sought clarification. Nableezy reverted it so I posted it to SFR's talk page. Contrary to your assertion, I did not post again to Nableezy's page. Nableezy did though respond to the thread on SFR's page. That all seems a bit silly. I didn't disrespect Nableezy's subsequent directive to stay off his talk page. And Vandamonde, I didn't selectively interpret SFR's post. SFR said to start an RFC. I said "No" to nableezy's repeated assertion that this was gaming the system. I didn't dispute SFR's statement that there is no consensus. If there's no consensus we retain the status quo for the RFC. I didn't edit war. I made 2 reverts separate by 7 days and I was not alone in doing so. Andre🚐 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, I don't see how I was supposed interpret "kindly take your leave" as "do not post any clarifying further questions" nor was Nableezy's subsequent post to my talk page "necessary" as it came after I removed my post, not added a new post. Andre🚐 22:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, I interpreted that as Nableezy wasn't interested in apologizing or modifying his accusations, not a blanket talk page ban. I don't see that I should interpret that so strictly as you seem to. It became clearer afterwards, but I wasn't intentionally flouting that. It seemed more sensible to continue the conversation with the followup question to SFR in-context. After it was made clear by Nableezy reverting that I did not post to his talk page again. My next post was to remove the whole thread. Andre🚐 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further regarding the issue of edit warring, it's clear that a number of editors tried to remove the material and a number of editors restored it. But I'm here about Nableezy's claims of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming. I didn't engage in those. I restored the content twice over the course of 7 days. Then I started the RFC at prompting from SFR. I did not engage in any disruptive behaviors. If some editors try to remove material and other editors are restoring material, are you trying to say that the correct action is to simply let the editors removing it leave it out? That's not how things have ever been done here that I know of. If an RFC is merited as an uninvolved admin suggested, and if the article scopes are different as an uninvolved admin suggested, then the RFC would have the status quo during the duration. That's always been the case in my experience. I'm rather disappointed that this is now about whether I violated nableezy's talk page or whether I edit warred. Even if you believe my 2 reverts are edit warring, pblock me from that page then. But how about Nableezy's sanctionable incivility? Andre🚐 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding again to Barkeep, as I said, I thought that since Nableezy referred to the statement by SFR I would ask SFR to clarify. That seemed simple enough and didn't seem like it would offend since Nableezy was the one who pinged SFR on the article talk to begin with. At any rate, if the subsequent message after the "kindly take leave" was unwelcomed, I apologize for that. Andre🚐 01:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, I wasn't sure about that so asked about it on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#ONUS_a_blank_check? and there was no consensus there, nor has there ever been in the past, that in general ONUS supercedes WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOCON, and WP:RFC. The standard has always been during RFCs not to edit the page. Andre🚐 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The important diffs
  1. accusation
  2. accusation of tendentious and wikilawyering
  3. ping to SFR
  4. accusation of tendentious disruptive editing
  5. gaming
  6. defense of aspersions
  7. accusation of distortion
  8. revert my message
  9. revert
  10. request not to edit his talk page
  11. Repeated aspersion of tendentious editing
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [127]
  2. others in AE archives
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[128]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nableezy

It *is* tendentious to make editors go through the same argument over and over again. We had a recent RFC on the exact same topic on the parent article. Anybody is justified in discussing and attempting to find a new consensus, but when we have already had that argument and there was a consensus established at the parent article demanding that the material be retained for 30 days because an RFC was opened *is* tendentious and it *is* gaming. That isnt an aspersion. If there is something about my reverting Andre on my own talk page or responding to his admin-shopped complaint at another talk page I need to respond to here lmk. But citing evidence for an accusation is the opposite of "casting aspersions". nableezy - 21:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, yes, something can be relevant in a child article where it is less important in the parent article, but that isnt the issue here. The issue is whether or not the topics are even related, with the established consensus being that the wars of 1947-1948 not being related to the mass emigration of Jews to Israel over the next decade. If it is not related to the wider war, it is likewise not related to something with an even smaller scope. The discussion at the parent article found a consensus that this was at most an indirect result of the entire conflict, it makes no sense that it would then be a direct, and major, consequence of the smaller scoped article. Ill also point to this comment by another editor saying the same thing. nableezy - 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, starting the RFC is not the issue. Starting it and demanding the material that does not have consensus for inclusion and that past RFC consensus against the very same arguments being offered for inclusion here *is* what I am saying is tendentious and gaming. nableezy - 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal it means that discussion has concluded and Id like the person to no longer continue it. When Andre ignored that I then asked that he no longer edit my talk page at all. I dont think his final two edits to my talk page are really an issue worth discussing. At this point though, yes I have asked him to no longer edit my talk page except when required. nableezy - 23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert I decline to engage with anything else you’ve written as I see literally no point, but please read through the end of the section of the link to my talk page that you posted to see that ban was reduced on appeal to 30 days. nableezy - 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, stay off my talk page was not the response, that came after you went from discussing with me to badgering me. Pinging an admin to my talk page after me asking you to end the discussion, removing the entire discussion on my talk page without my permission, that was what led me to ask you to stay off my talk page. Not your initial message, or your next message for that matter. You can say my comments were unsubstantiated, but I did substantiate them, I provided the reasons why I say those actions were gaming and disruptive. Aspersions are unsupported claims, not claims you disagree with. I do think you both edit warred and transparently attempted to game inclusion of what does not have consensus for inclusion and in a very closely related discussion has consensus against. I’ve given the reasons why I say that. Why didn’t I come to AE? Because every time I try to deal with any behavioral thing at AE it becomes an ungodly clusterfuck and I just don’t have that energy to give right now. But yes I think you are gaming and yes I think that is sanctionable. If the admins have any questions for me I’m happy to answer them but other than that idk what else there is for me to say here. nableezy - 00:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, that is neither true nor related. Both the status quo and the consensus of that discussion was to include in the lead. You yourself removed it from the lead and then attempted to claim that to be the status quo. I’m pretty tired of this throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks method of seeking sanctions, so unless an admin tells me I need to respond to something else here I am going to ignore it as noise. nableezy - 02:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. You removed it on August 19, when it had been in the lead unchallenged since April. nableezy - 03:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, there is zero cause for any interaction ban at all. Disagreeing with somebody doesn’t make it so there is no constructive communication. The idea that if people consistently disagree with each other the correct course of action is to limit any discussion between them is, to be blunt, childish. We are not children to be put in time out. We don’t have to agree, but others may find our points persuasive and from that a wider consensus may develop. How many people cited either of our views at the RFC on Hamas-run as a qualifier for the health ministry? Consensus development is not about the two of us agreeing or persuading one another, it is about us persuading other users, and by limiting any interaction you stifle that. nableezy - 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as who cares, due to another users repeated reverts, the articles lead now includes an outright false statement, not just an irrelevant one. You may not care about that, but I do. nableezy - 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as 0RR, I have made a grand total of one revert, and I did so on the basis of a highly related RFC consensus. If you are defining participant in an edit war as anybody who made a single revert and justified it then I think you and I are operating with different dictionaries. nableezy - 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not care about that, but I do is now being offered as harsh language by me lol? You literally said But, really, who cares if that sentence is there or not for the duration of the RFC. That is just ridiculous. I answered who cares about including factually incorrect, and there is no dispute on that part, material in the lead of an encyclopedia article. I do. nableezy - 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe I participated in a multi-party edit war, I made the edit I made, and explained it, without even looking at the history of the article. I saw the discussion, and recalled the prior RFC, and saw people making the same exact argument that was rejected by consensus in that RFC. So I made a single revert. When it was restored I complained about a factual inaccuracy. Somebody else modified that, that was reverted to restore the inaccuracy, and Zero removed that because with the inaccuracy it was even less related to the topic. I do not think either of us "participated in a multi-party edit war", and I think if you are going to define edit-warring to include a single revert made with a justification on a talk page that needs to be made considerably more explicit. My past sanctions, a decade ago, were because I did indeed edit war. It is something I have not done for over a decade intentionally. Ive given others the same advice, eg here, where I advised a user if you make it a rule to instead of reverting an edit of yours that was reverted to go to the talk page and essentially convince others to revert it by consensus you will save yourself most of the administrative headaches in this area. I had no intention to edit-war, and would not have made any additional reverts. And as such I do not think it reasonable to portray my actions at that page as edit-warring. nableezy - 16:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I think it certainly turned into that, but I don't really think it was when I removed the sentence. But also, I think the RFC from the prior article clearly applies to this same issue. It is the same issue with the same sources, mostly offered by the same users. To me this was a simple issue of math. If the set of consequences of A is the sum of the set of consequences of B and of C, than if something is not in set A it is in neither sets B or C. I think it is plainly obvious, if you review both discussions, that we already have a consensus on this topic. And so I removed a sentence once. When it became a prolonged back and forth yes it was a multi-party edit war, but I don't think it was when I reverted. nableezy - 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@the admins, if you're going to be looking at the entire history, Snowstormfigorion is even reverting tags about a false statement in the article. That is their now third revert, two of them inserting false statements that fail verification. nableezy - 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

Special:GoToComment/c-Nableezy-20240311163900-Coretheapple-20240311163900 Thanks for demonstrating your inability to respond to math.

Edit: Special:PermanentLink/1204764975#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction so the editor was still under the topicban at that time? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised this uncivility (and topicban violation, if I'm correct) complaint is down to how to interpret some requests to not to edit a user talkpage. A talkpage is a legitimate method to communicate between the editors. Including posting warnings if one assumes some Wikipedia rules are broken. Actually, one is encouraged to post legitimate warnings to user talkpage by the rules. This is how editors encourage others to adhere to the rules, and this is how we maintain the health of the community.
And nowhere in the rules I saw an option to "ban" somebody when I don't like their warnings. Actually, I would expect administrators to be wary about the repeated behavior of "banning" those giving warnings, as the editor did also for me User talk:Manyareasexpert#my talk page . If I understand the rules correctly, one simply cannot "ban" you from a talk page, it's contrary to the rules!
I would also expect administrators to be wary of the (repeated?) behavior of undoing the warnings without archiving them [129] with "lol".
Behaviors like these go against the collaborative spirit editors are supposed to work within the community. Somebody may even consider them offending. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, I'm not aware of the policy to restrict others from my talkpage, if there is such, please disregard the message above (and enlighten me with the policy, thanks). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, given the editor has "banned" at least 2 other editors, and me, an uninvolved editor, who was not a target of their personal attack, we may have a WP:SOMTP case here: Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others. How many other editors were "banned"?
The topicban was ending at the end of March 2024 and the editor participated in discussion on March 11.
Correction: as pointed out, the TB was appealed and shortened to the end of Jan 2024. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

A' list for diffs are not chronological:

Possible boomerang for keep posting on a user-page after you have been told not to? Huldra (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrevan yes, please get the diffs in a correct order, thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the following diffs are to N's talk-page:

Is it ok to post on a talk-page after been repeatedly asked not to? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan wrote: "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." Actually, that is how I would have interpreted it. At least, you shouldn't be surprised about curt language if you insists on posting again, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Just noting that Nableezy doesn't interpret "So kindly take your leave from this page" as a ban from the talk page; instead, they appear to interpret it merely a request. See this clarification that they made when they used the phrase previously.

As note on the dispute itself, this discussion appears to contain a related issue.
Nableezy and a couple of other editors wish to include "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel". The status quo is to not include, but based on their WP:INVOLVED reading of that informal discussion, they argue that there is a consensus to include it, and have repeatedly done so.
Nableezy, it was WP:BOLDLY added on September 11 and disputed immediately, and has continued to be contentious. It isn't the status quo.
That isn't the content currently being disputed, or the content I am saying is not the status quo. That content is the sentence "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel", which is not in the diff you provided, and was added on September 11.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding; now that this has been clarified, do you withdraw your objection that the inclusion of this content is the status quo? 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Unfortunately, your proposed method of restoring the status quo while an RFC is proceeding does not appear workable; see this test of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0RR probably isn't the best solution to this common problem. A better solution is to treat reverts away from the status quo as different from reverts back to the status quo - treat the former as more disruptive than the latter, because they are more disruptive.
This would function as "consensus required", requiring editors to get consensus if their disputed bold edit is reverted, as well as providing a clear path to get the content back to the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, if there is consensus then that is the new status quo, and reverting away from that will be the disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

WP:ONUS would suggest that once material is removed from an article and while discussion is occurring on the article's talk page that the content stay removed until such time as there is consensus unless there is some other policy reason for the material to be re-inserted. Per the policy, "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". TarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by arkon

Clearly the important thing here is a nebulous personal talk page ban that was or wasn't. Should have already been a case via ARCA, but I'm apparently in the minority. Arkon (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

The disputed sentence covers two separate issues 1) The total number of Jews that immigrated to Israel in the three years following the war and 2) Included within that, those Jews immigrating from the Arab world. The currently running RFC addresses only the second issue so the QUO argument should only be about that part, nevertheless, despite it being made absolutely clear on the article talk page that the material covered in 1) fails verification, Snowstormfigorion has again made another revert restoring this material claiming that it is subject of the RFC, which it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase du jour is "multi-editor edit war" (by experienced editors), I suppose that might be an "improvement" over "tag-team edit warring" (by regulars) per the potential ARCA. I deliberately decided not to revert the changes being made, although I thought that they should be reverted, for fear of this dismal accusation being made once again and there it is. If we want this "behavior" (which I regard as being arguments over content) to stop, then the need is to define this "offence" clearly so that it is simply not an option anymore. How does it come about? There is a removal (usually, it could be an addition)), then it is reverted and off we go with the supposed regulars, typically supplemented by some irregulars, back and forth. OK, the first removal must not give simply ONUS as reason, there must be some substantive real reason for removal. If there is, then any revert requires an equally substantive, real reason. If that's so, then the only recourse is discussion starting on the talk page. That's a particular case of WP:BRD turned into a rule instead of an optional thing (not saying this "rule" doesn't need workshopping and tidying up). Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis

Considering that we've learned recently about what appears to be a large-scale and well-organised effort to influence the Wikipedia coverage of the conflict (link, please see the part about the Discord channel used to coordinate Wikipedia editing), I think that it might be worthwhile to review the decisions taken recently in this topic area, including the closures of RfCs like this one. Alaexis¿question? 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, for sure, my point was that opening an RfC in this situation wasn't disruptive. Alaexis¿question? 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I have edited that article only twice in more than two years. Any suggestion that I edit-war there is false. Moreover, I'm happy to justify either of those edits.

Only a fraction of reverts are to-and-fro between regular editors. A large number are reverts of new or fly-by-night editors who don't know the subject and come along to insert bad text in violation of NPOV or RS or the facts. This type of revert is a good edit and without it keeping the article in an acceptable state would be impossible. An inevitable result of hitting the most experienced editors with 0RR would be deterioration of article quality. Zerotalk 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You ask a fair question, and if you study my record you'll see that I do that sort of thing hardly ever. If I'd thought for more than a few seconds, I would have decided against it. As far as I remember, my motive at that moment was that there was a recent RfC about exactly the same question and there was no talk page consensus to overturn it. So I felt there was already a consensus until someone established a different consensus, which is what I wrote in my edit summary. I also knew that the sentence I removed is factually incorrect, as Nableezy had pointed out on the talk page and I had checked. Zerotalk 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to change the status quo, and especially if there is an RfC to change the status quo, then reverting back to the status quo is obviously more disruptive than implementing the consensus. It negates the very purpose of consensus. So BilledMammal's latest idea doesn't pass scrutiny. Zerotalk 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

I'd like to point out that the editors mentioned in this complaint each have their own record, which could suggest the need for tailored sanctions. For instance, only three months ago, User:Makeandtoss, who took part in this edit war, was given their 'final warning' "for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics", with Seraphimblade writing that it should be given "with very clear understanding that any more problems will almost certainly lead to a topic ban". To me, it's obvious now that just giving more warnings won't make a difference. ABHammad (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

@Valereee: Thank you for the ping, I had been seriously ill. As well-articulated by @Vanamonde93:, there are different aspects to this dispute. Removing material that had no consensus for its inclusion or keeping conforms with WP:ONUS, while constantly re-adding that contested material is in direct violation of it. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is actually the relevant guideline, rather than WP:PRESERVE, since the former's scope includes contentious material such as this one. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. RFCs are a way of reaching broader consensus so they cannot be considered to have a freeze effect on contentious material that has no consensus, and this RFC was anyway belatedly opened at the end after the removals. Having avoided making further reverts myself and engaged extensively in the talk page and encouraged those re-adding the contentious material to seek proper dispute resolution, conformity with all the relevant guidelines and policies was maintained. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the IBANs for the other editors I think it might not be helpful, since, during disputes, we need more communication, not less of it; disputes are often the result of a lack of communication. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Snowstormfigorion, ditto. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives908

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Archives908

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]

Archives908 has engaged in slow edit warring against multiple editors in National Assembly (Artsakh), resorting to POV-pushing (repeatedly adding controversial information about a dissolved entity still existing using questionable sources) before consensus is reached. They were warned that this behaviour was unconstructive and were asked to revert their edits while the discussion is ongoing [138] but disregarded the warning.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[142]

Discussion concerning Archives908

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Archives908

User Parishan made one edit, which was reverted one time by myself on National Assembly (Artsakh). We have since been civilly discussing the edit on the talk page according to WP:BRD guidelines in an attempt to reach WP:CON. Neither of us have engaged in an WP:EW or violated either WP:3RR or even WP:2RR. I am utterly confused by this report. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in 2021, I was a relatively unexperienced editor and was unaware about the policies regarding reverting edits made by confirmed sockpuppets. I apologized, educated myself of those policies, and never violated those rules since. This old report, from almost half a decade ago, is in my opinion irrelevant to this topic as I have never "mass reverted edits" made by a sockpuppet ever since. Archives908 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide additional clarification. Parishan made this edit on October 28. I restored the last stable version (only once) because Parishan's edit was factually incorrect. In Parishan's WP:ES, they used the word unlikely, implying uncertainty in their own edit. After the revert, we proceeded to have a very civil discussion regarding the status of the National Assembly of Artsakh. Parishan, at first, asserted that the body is defunct. Then on October 29, Parishan stated that the body does engage in "local media outreach". Yet, sources I found showed that the National Assembly has been actively operating in Armenia. From releasing official documents, organizing rallies, press briefings and protests, and meeting with leaders of the 2024 Armenian protests. It's significantly more then just "local media outreach". In any case, we were trying to reach a WP:CON. There was no WP:EW. As you see here ([143]) I even recommended a fair alternative by suggesting we create a new article which would be centered around the government-in-exile in Yerevan, while the current article could be focused on the former legislative body in Stepanakert. This would have been an ideal solution for both of our concerns, but my proposal was ignored. I abided by WP:BRD ethos. Parishan's "B"old edit was "R"everted, and then we both "D"iscussed. Parishan did ask me to revert my edit, but in all honesty, I skimmed the users message very fast that day and totally read over their request (by mistake). I should have taken time to read their response more carefully, and for that I do apologize. However, I acted fully in accordance with WP:BRD ethos and did not violate WP:2RR. I ask the Admins for leniency. I will certainly work on reading responses more diligently in the future. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archives908

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Bohemian Baltimore

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Bohemian Baltimore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Bohemian Baltimore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19:52, 25 October 2024 Adding self-identification category to Grant Fuhr without direct support from article and its cited sources. Reverted by me.
  2. 18:35, 25 October 2024 Replacing Taino descent category with self-identification category. Was reverted by User:Lewisguile noting same issue.
  3. 18:34, 25 October 2024 Replacing Taino descent category with self-identification category. Reverted by Lewisguile noting same issue.
  4. 16:43, 22 October 2024 Replacing Navajo People category with self-identification Indigenous Mexican category. Reverted by me because neither article text nor its cited sources verify self-identification.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I first learned about Bohemian Baltimore's disputed edits that introduce a self-identification qualifier to biographies of living people without explicit support from RSes on a May BLP Noticeboard discussion about Patricia Norby.[144] Consensus was against these edits. As far as I can tell, Bohemian Baltimore has made hundreds of this type of edits since 2023, mostly by use of categories.[145] The categories are very contentious themselves based on a prior CfD discussion.[146] I have reverted many of these edits and previously warned Bohemian Baltimore in August about this.[147][148][149]

I believe Bohemian Baltimore should be barred from BLPs involving Native/Indigenous topics.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[150]

Discussion concerning Bohemian Baltimore

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Bohemian Baltimore

I do not appreciate this transparent attempt to harass me and censor my contributions to Wikipedia. Each of these individuals was either adopted or self-identifies as Taíno. None of these people have tribal citizenship; the source of their Indigenous identity is very literally through their own self-identification rather than through any tribal citizenship. As for the ArbCom discussion, where is this "consensus"? Where is this stated and by whom? What binding precedent was set or rules established for editing? Please, enlighten me. What exactly am I missing here? It is very disappointing and alarming that this user is deploying strong-arm tactics to permanently suppress the contributions of Native and allied editors. This is not the first time this editor has defamed or harassed me, based on his own idiosyncratic and self-declared definition of self-identification. There are many ways to handle disputes. Trying to get me banned from editing is outrageous and controlling and it undermines Wikipedia's diversity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic Please stick to the topic. I regard dragging these long dead and irrelevant debates into this conversation as a smear. I made an attempt to improve visibility for gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people; to address erasure and invisibility of LGBT people, as a proud member of the LGBT community. I will not apologize for being queer. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish What knowledge do you have of tribal citizenship? Is this a topic you have attempted to research and educate yourself on before declaring that I should be banned? Tribal citizenship is very much verifiable and defining. The fact that the Taino have no tribal citizenship is not "original research". It's simply a fact. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raladic

A similar issue around identities also occurred a few months ago in the LGBTQ space when @BB created a series of erroneous categories and tried to shift categories into sub-categories that would mis-categorize people with different LGBTQ identities. Refer to User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Aromanticism and Asexuality are the A of LGBTQIA+ and Intersex is the I and is inherently an LGBTQIA+ identity and this one User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Pansexuality is not the same as bisexuality by @Mason for context. And the resulting cleanup that had to be made afterwards per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:LGBT asexual people these wrong categorizations. So it does appear that the user may have a pattern of, while good-faith, wrong categorizations of BLPs, which are problematic, so a warning to be more careful of working on categorization of BLPs may be appropriate. Raladic (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)  [reply]

No smear is intended, I merely pointed out that as I said above, that while I fully believe you made the changes in good faith, they were clerically incorrect as was pointed out in the subsequent discussions. I also fully appreciate you trying to increase visibility for LGBTQ people, as that is where I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia as well as a queer person myself. Raladic (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raladic I really despise having to re-hash ancient and irrelevant drama, but some of the categories I created were actually kept. So actually, it was a useful and productive conversation about the visibility of queer people within the ace community, and about the definition of bisexuality (and the "two or more genders" definition I used is actually widespread and normative, despite Wikipedia's fossilized conservatism on these matters). I do not like homophobia. I do not like being subject to homophobic attacks. These old conversations have been irrelevantly thrown in my face, on-Wiki and off-Wiki, by multiple people. Your intent doesn't really make a difference. To assume good faith, I am sure you and Mason think of yourselves as harmlessly correcting mistakes. Whereas, I view it as objectively homophobic as it creates a hostile environment for queer editors. I do not feel welcomed or respected as a queer person on Wikipedia. I feel defamed and excluded. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I had similar interactions at Talk:Indigenous_cuisine_of_the_Americas#Content/context_removal? regarding removal of identification of individuals as native American in Wikivoice over the tribe not being recognized by federal/state governments, at that article and at Louis Trevino and Vincent Medina. BB wanted to insert 'self-identify as'. They did drop it after I pointed out the NYT was calling them Ohlone and another editor reverted them, but BB does seem to be pretty focussed on the concept of self-identification (vs. identifying in WV) of BLPs if they don't agree a group officially exists or how it's defined? Valereee (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, I'd like to hear that explanation w/re: identification of members of any tribe that isn't officially recognized by a government body. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohemian Baltimore, so you are saying that if a tribe isn't officially recognized by a government body, Wikipedia should be referring to folks as "self-identified", even if RS are referring to them as tribal members, because no one can actually be a member of a such a tribe? Valereee (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee American Indian tribes under law are sovereign nations with citizens. There are neo-Taíno revivalist organizations that promote Taíno identity and who promote reviving a distinct Taíno culture, which was assimilated into the Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican culture centuries ago. However, these non-profit organizations are not tribes. Typically, they are registered as 501c3s. They have no citizens. They have no sovereignty. The basis of their identity is purely through their own self-identification, rather than any legal status. Whether or not a group should be recognized as a tribe is an opinion. Not that my opinion really matters, but I know of several groups of American Indian descendants who have no recognition as a tribe, but who I think should be recognized. The Taíno revivalists lack of any sovereign nation is a fact, not an opinion. A Puerto Rican who self-identifies as Taíno is simply a US citizen. Whereas, for example, an enrolled Cherokee Nation member is both a citizen of the US and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bohemian Baltimore

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Pyramids09

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Pyramids09

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Pyramids09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, the consensus required provision at Zionism
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 05:38, 31 October 2024 violation of the consensus required provision, restoring the edit that was reverted previously. Prior edits were this and this. It is also a dishonest edit summary, claiming that a substantive change to content was simply "Formatting and streamlining"


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was reminded of the consensus required provision on their talk page 25 October after they violated the 1RR (first revert, second revert). They said they would propose on talk page. To date the user has 0 edits on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Pyramids09

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Pyramids09

Statement by xDanielx

This isn't the most experienced user, and the consensus-required restriction isn't obvious. I know it's one of the items in the edit notice, but it's visually similar to the usual extended-confirmed notice which we're all used to skipping over. Users probably need to be personally notified before we can really expect compliance. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pyramids09

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

LivinAWestLife