Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David A (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 14 December 2024 (→My many observations regarding this situation as a whole). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Active:

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
3. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
4. Daniel (talk · contribs)
5. Elli (talk · contribs)
6. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
7. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)
8. Primefac (talk · contribs)
9. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
10. Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs)
11. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)
12. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
13. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive:

1. Liz (talk · contribs)

Outgoing arbitrators, active on this case:

1. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
2. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)

Recused:

1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)

Parties list

I want to repeat a question that I've asked the Committee, and particularly the drafters. If I feel that it is appropriate to the case scope to add evidence about a user who is not currently on the list of named parties, may I do so, and if so, how should I do it? I obviously don't want to make what might be construed as personal attacks against someone who is not named as a party, and I also don't want to draw hostility from some involved editors if the person ends up not being made a named party. Should I email the Committee a summary of my proposed evidence, so you can advise me whether you would like such evidence to be posted or not? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to acknowledge that this has been seen and is being discussed by the drafters. - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: The current party list consists of editors from two AE referrals where AE was unable to address the issues between these editors. To consider new parties, a rationale with a limit of 250 words and 20 diffs should be provided here on the /Evidence talk page to demonstrate that a given editor's actions are both relevant to the case and that attempts to resolve this issue have previously been attempted without success. - Aoidh (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: The editor I have in mind was also involved in those AE referrals, but their name somehow dropped off the list by the time the case was accepted; evidence about them would also be closely intertwined with evidence about an editor who is currently on the parties list, and it seems to me to make little sense to examine the editor already on the parties list without also examining the other editor. I know from experience that if I provide what you have requested here, I will be subjected to a world of aggravation, and that would make it not worth it to me to participate any further in this case. I'm quite prepared to post evidence with diffs, but I only want to do so after becoming sure that the evidence about this editor will be treated as evidence about a named party, not before. I'm thinking that I may just email the evidence to ArbCom, and you can do with it what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Except for me and HaOfa, none of the editors on the party list were parties to either of the AE referrals, and the AE filings (which I filed) didn't involve them. Can you explain "The current party list consists of editors from two AE referrals where AE was unable to address the issues between these editors"? Levivich (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: While you filed האופה, you did not file Nableezy or Nableezy 2. As previously mentioned, the parties for this case are based off of those AE discussions. Every editor in the party list for this case was involved in or was discussed at one of the three AE threads that resulted in the two ARCA referrals. - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. So it's 3 AEs, not 2? I'm confused about which AEs are the AEs being referred. Not the PeleYoetz one anymore? I assume because of the SPI? So if the SPI against HaOfa comes back confirmed, does that mean they'll be dropped as a party too, along with that AE referral? Would that mean that I get dropped as a party, too, if the two AEs I filed are no longer being referred?

And I'm also still confused about the selection of parties... looking at those 3 AEs (HaOfa, Nableezy 1, Nableezy 2), I don't understand what logic or set of diffs leads to Isk, Self, Iohan, Zero and several others being parties but not ABHammad, Berchanimez, or several others.

Would it be possible to just post a list somewhere of the diffs that pertain to each party and where they were posted?

The whole 250-word statement and max 20 diffs for new party suggestions makes sense, but that gives new parties an edge that existing parties don't have. In a traditional ARC, diffs for all parties would be posted at the ARC. But here we have parties without (clear) diffs, and diffs without parties. Levivich (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

There were two referrals at ARCA, but three AE threads that were referred to us. Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) was referred after האופה, and Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al was referred through Nableezy and Nableezy 2. PeleYoetz was removed prior to the case beginning after being blocked as a sockpuppet. Because they were the only editor from the PeleYoetz AE thread that was being added as a party that was not already named it rendered that moot, but that is not the case for the other referrals. The named parties were determined after examination of the AE threads referred to us. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the short answer that if someone believes a user should be added as a party, they present evidence to that effect and ask the committee to add them? Being a party isn't some kind of prejudicial thing, plenty of cases over the years have ended without the majority of the named parties being sanctioned. Just Step Sideways 23:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is true, especially when it's not a case that is specifically focused on one or two editors. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, at least not in recent years. The last few years of cases and how many parties got sanctioned:

• Yasuke 63%: 5/8 + 1 non-party
• Historical elections 63%: 5/8
• Venezuelan politics 100%: 2/2
• COI management 66%: 2/4 (really 2/3 because 1 party is an arb)
• Mzajac 100%: 1/2 (really 1/1 because 1 party is an arb)
• Industrial agriculture 66%: 2/3
• SmallCat dispute 43%: 3/7
• AlisonW 25%: 1/4
• Scottywong 100%: 2/2
• AA3 66%: 4/6
• Stephen 0%: 0/1
• Athaenara 100%: 2/2
• Deletion-related editing 100%: 4/4
• Tropical Cyclones 57%: 4/7
• Skepticism 50%: 3/7 (really 3/6 because 1 party was a clerk)
• Iranian politics 83%: 5/6
• RexxS 100%: 1/1
• Kurds 71%: 5/7

~2/3 of case parties are sanctioned on average. Very few cases, at least in recent years, have ended without the majority of the named parties being sanctioned, usually a supermajority. Being a party is a prejudicial thing, especially because the people choosing the parties are also the people choosing the sanctions (one of the ways in which arbcom is not at all like a court), and no one is immune to confirmation bias. Levivich (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom certainly is not a court. We don't have an adverserail system where paid experts use loopholes and delaying tactics to get their clients out of trouble, thankfully. It isn't arbitration either, but we seem to be stuck with that moniker. However, courts do regularly make decisions regarding the standing of persons associated with a case. I was added as a party on a case that was all the way into the workshop phase, when the subject decided, without submitting a shred of evidence, to try and make the case about me instead of his own actions.

I will say that I wouldn't count cases regarding the conduct of a single admin admin in what I said above, like it or not, it is well know that the most likely result is a desysop, and indeed that is the case in all but one of the cases you named. You also seem in some cases to be counting warnings/admonishments as sanctions. This is perhaps a matter of interpretation but I don't consider those sanctions. Just Step Sideways 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The average "sanction rate" for all cases listed above is 70%. For only cases with 3+ parties, 63%. Not a big difference.

For an apples-to-apples comparison:

• WP:ARBPIA (2008): 0/15
• WP:PIA2 (2009): 8/12
• WP:PIA3 (2015): 0/7
• WP:PIA4 (2019): 0/0
• WP:PIA5 (2024): ?/13

I hadn't realized this, but in 3/4 of the prior PIA cases, arbcom apparently decided not to sanction any specific editors (unless I'm misreading the case page). In PIA2, the only case where any editors were sanctioned, 8 out of 12 were sanctioned. Levivich (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is probably more accurate to say 6 out of 12 for WP:PIA2 because it included one person operating 2 ban evasion accounts. Their accounts were sanctioned but the editor was not, assuming 'editor' means a person rather than account (an actor). The sanctions had no impact on the editor's ability to edit. They have continued to be active in the topic area since then. So, if arbcom were like a court, it would be like a court in a state with an unsanctionable class. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Leviich: is there a reason you don't include the previous case where you were a party in this analysis? A case where, not for nothing, ArbCom really decided the party list (even more than this one)? Because I count 6 (including GCB) out of 18 parties who got sanctioned at HJP which would make it 57/99 named parties (plus one non-named party). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

IIRC it was the only case in the history of arbcom that was started by arbcom, it had ~3x as many parties as any other case in recent history (one of the largest party lists of all time), and the parties were selected based on "editor who were named in a journal paper, except some arbs" -- so an outlier that is not comparable to 'normal' cases. If it were listed, it'd bring the average down a bit, but not by much. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It brings it down from 51/81 (~63%) to 57/99 (~58%). But I would argue it's most similar in terms of ArbCom really driving the train when it comes to the party list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we just focus the case on systemic solutions here? I hope that this way, everyone will be encouraged to participate and provide constructive feedback on the topic area, which is really the whole point here. If there are potential individual sanctions worth considering, ArbCom can remand those individuals to AE in its proposed decision, which could be worded as something like "Individuals remanded - ArbCom remands the following individuals to AE for further evaluation of their conduct: Editor A, Editor B, ...". Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that the drafting arbs still leave this open-ended, but I think we only have limited time and resources in PIA5 that it is not worth splitting the focus with individual interactions, PIA5 should focus on structural problems that the community has been unable to resolve. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Although I think it's likely too late for this, I do think that phase where people go over the topic area to determine who is a potential party might be a good idea, rather than just grabbing whoever happened to be connected to two specific AE cases. Part of the issue a lot of evidence is pointing to are WP:CIVILPOV issues, and often that passes under the radar; devoting a week to having editors go over problems and problem areas and figure out if there are specific names that keep coming up might produce a more comprehensive list of parties. I'm all for focusing on structural problems but in my experience, the main impact of ArbCom cases is in sanctioning individual editors; changing structural stuff is hard, especially in a situation like this where the ultimate source of the conflict stems from real-world events. Nothing ArbCom can do is ever going to render the PIA topic area non-contentious, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  This was my idea. Named in evidence and you become a party. Use more than the non-party allotment of words/diffs and you become a party. The problems are so widespread that trying to pick individual parties out isn't going to work well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Email sent. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I did that because I wanted to avoid drama, but I have received a reply from ArbCom, saying that because there is no private evidence in my email, I must post the request here, so that's what I'm doing now. What follows is a portion of the email that I sent. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Nishidani

• In the past two years, Nishidani has been the named subject of 5 AE cases: , , , , , although the last one was initiated by sockpuppets.

Nishidani directs belittling and othering language at other editors

• My limited involvement in the topic area comes almost entirely from discussions about renaming Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism from its previous name as Zionism, race and genetics.
• Saying that other editors haven't read the sources, or are incapable of understanding the sources, and so should be discounted:

• Saying that it's just two editors (Andre and me) who want to rename the page, when it's actually many more:
• Was it really just us two? Here are the opening posts for every section on the talk page, that were about discussing a new page name:
• Note that Andre and I did not always agree with one another: .
• It's worth reading the entire RM discussion that got consensus: , and the accompanying discussion: . Note in particular how experienced editors who were previously uninvolved, and who came in response to the RM, were treated as unwelcome.

• If I am able to post this – and further – evidence, I also intend to write an analysis of my own evidence on the Workshop page. It will relate closely to SFR's own analysis as well as Crossroads' evidence. I'll try to explain how this case ultimately is not about POV-pushing, but about an editing culture in the topic area that makes it unwelcoming to experienced editors who are new to the topic and who could be "fresh eyes".

• Notified: .

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

evidence that ain't evidence

I'm not seeing any actual evidence in the two submissions so far. This phase of the process is for gathering evidence, usually in the form of diffs, not for parties write essays to the committee. I could understand this if it was being done to refute evidence that had been presented, but that's not the case. Just Step Sideways 23:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Point of order, do the "pre-" proceedings from AE automatically enter into evidence, or are we expected to re-submit any diffs from those "pre-" proceedings? Andre🚐 02:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre Evidence will need to be resubmitted, although your evidence submission could be a diff to relevant parts of the AE. CaptainEek ⚓ 06:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Evidence about what, tho? It remains unclear whether this is a case in general or a referral of 3 AE cases, per the party list it appears the latter. I can represent all the material already presented in the Preliminary statements if desired, otherwise I cannot find any specific evidence to respond to. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Words and diffs

I'm trying to keep my evidence limited, but I'll likely need more diffs since looking at a single edit war took more than half of my limit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, does the article content I textdiffed count against my word count? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It does count against your word count (unless an arb decides otherwise). As a technical trick, you can input any two revision IDs into Special:Diff and it will output the diff between them (for instance, Special:Diff/1260041415/1256254535 is the difference between the current revisions of our user pages). That would count as a single diff. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at it that way and it's too disparate to show the similar content side by side. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't edited in the Palestine-Israel area and am not planning to be involved in this case. However, it seems to me that, as a matter of common sense, ArbCom should allow the referring administrators from Arbitration Enforcement who requested this case enough words and diffs as they need to present their case. ArbCom, after three months, decided that ArbCom needed to review conduct in the Palestine-Israel area, because the community was unable to handle it, and the administrators at AE were unable to handle it. If ArbCom prevents the referring administrators from presenting all of the evidence, ArbCom may not have enough information to take necessary action. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: How many words and diffs do you expect you'll need? I just copy and paste the rendered text into https://wordcounter.net/ which says you're currently at 1220 words even without the textdiff, 2662 with it. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I could go on forever, so you can just tell me when you've had enough. If the drafters find some evidence to be less than helpful I can nix it and expand elsewhere. As of right now I had one more battleground section I was going to throw together, so maybe another few hundred words and dozen diffs? Or I can just be done now, Either way, really. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Your evidence limit is extended to 125 diffs and 1500 words plus the current textdiff. SilverLocust 💬 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Similar question: originally thought I had a 1k word limit, then realised I didn't and gave it a heavy edit to get under 500 words, which according to MS Word I now just scrape under. Not sure how the word count is done - is it words of Wikicode or is it rendered text?

I think like ScottishFinnishRadish my evidence is pointing towards a pattern of facially-civil POVWARRIOR behaviour across different article and as such this require substantially more diffs and text than is possible normal. However, I also appreciate that ARBCOM doesn't have infinite time to review evidence. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@FOARP: The word count is determined by the rendered text (per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Word limits). If you need an extension and know roughly how much of an extension is needed we can assess that. - Aoidh (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I can hit the word limit for the evidence I'm submitting related to "massacre" RMs in the I-P space. I have thought about looking at "attack" versus "airstrike" RMs since that's also been an apparent locus of battleground behaviour based on my experience closing them, but I'm not sure whether that really adds much to what I've already said rather than just reinforcing it. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh - just added more and did another edit for verboseness. I'm just hitting the word limit at 498, I assume the limit does not include the section-title? FOARP (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You're reasonably within the word limit at the moment. I suppose the main heading "Evidence presented by FOARP" doesn't count, but 4 words is a trifle. SilverLocust 💬 13:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Forks

My personal favorite at the moment is Palestinian suicide attacks, created a few months ago by a banned editor, and the much older Palestinian political violence.Dan Murphy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:15 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Murphy: If you would like this considered in reaching a decision, it will need to be submitted on the evidence page rather than here on the talk page. SilverLocust 💬 06:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the test for "IceWhiz socks"

In various discussions related to Israel and Jews, I keep seeing references to IceWhiz socks. The question which comes to mind is: on what basis do we actually determine that these accounts are IW socks? The following possibilities come to mind:

1. Accounts confirmed by CheckUsers directly with IW's original technical information (at this point it could only be done by someone who retained a private copy of his data)
2. Accounts confirmed via a sequence of confirmed accounts, each confirmed with the previous via CheckUser.
3. Accounts which experienced SPI administrators have determined via the DUCK test match IW himself.
4. Accounts confirmed via a sequence of accounts, each confirmed to the previous by one of the possibilities above.
5. Accounts that "someone" said is IW, and no one challenged.

Even if we go as low as #4, I suspect we will get many false positives; and #5 can easily come from users who want to introduce bias opisite from what IW does, since labeling your opponents as sockpuppets is a good way to defeat the opposition. And if IW has ever edited in Israel or via an Israeli VPN (given his pro-Israli bias), then even #2 becomes weak. Animal lover |666| 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The Committee and the CU squad have generally been pretty good at catching IW. We're not about to reveal sensitive data about how we catch him though, and I would discourage folks from speculating. I do agree that accusations of being an IW sock shouldn't just be bandied around. If someone is saying X is an IW sock, they should have the SPI/CU results to back it up. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've seen HJ Mitchell refer to possible Icewhiz socks as sophisticated bad actors, since there's really not a way to confirm anything other than avoiding checkuser confirmation in some of the usual ways. I don't know that it matters who's sock it is other than to say there are a lot of socks, and I think that is a reasonable way to refer to the unknowable-master-sockpuppets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that genuine new users being labeled as IW socks is both driving away potentially good users, and widening the test range for future attempts to detect his socks and increasing the amount of false positives. And combining several different sockpuppeteers into a single one can also have the widening effect, causing innocent users to be labeled as IW. Animal lover |666| 18:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by the word "labeled"? Levivich (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what AL666 is getting at. There's obviously a limit to what I can say but it's fairly easy to evade checkuser. It's harder to do it without it looking like that's what you're doing. Ultimately you have to trust that checkusers know what they're doing. If you're friendly with a CU and have concerns about a particular case, you can ask them to review the logs. Btw, sometimes it's quite easy to rule out an account being an Icewhiz sock based on CU data. The edge cases are often where an account is clearly uo to no good but can't be tied to a particular master. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Didn't one of IW's socks nearly become an administrator...? We've done a good job of catching the ones we know of, but several of those have been caught after an eyebrow-raisingly long time, during which they consumed considerable amounts of time and energy from other editors. My recollection is that IW socks also managed to bring several successful AE requests and other administrative processes against people he considered longstanding enemies. That experience is probably part of the reason people are quicker to make that accusation today. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That sock was eostrix, which was flying through confirmation at the time of the block.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure people are aware, but just as a historical note for anyone reading this discussion later, four days after this statement that the Committee and the CU squad have generally been pretty good at catching IW, two parties to this case were blocked as IceWhiz socks; they had been editing for over a year and two years respectively, had nearly 4000 edits between them, had been frequently weighing in on RFCs (sometimes both at once) and had consumed sufficient resources and time and energy that their behavior had escalated all the way to an ArbCom case before someone caught them. I suppose it's technically true that they were caught in the end, but I think this shows how serious the problem is, since I can see some people below arguing over it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's an important point, that Icewhiz seems to, repeatedly, have socks that take too long to identify and block. In general, I think the problems with socks (less skillful ones) can be adequately dealt with via SPI and probably don't need ArbCom to do anything additional about it, but this is potentially an exception to that generalization. Is there something about the ways that Icewhiz pulls this off that should require ArbCom to come up with some sort of new way of dealing with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not so much too long to identify as too long to block. I publicly identified these in June. I'm 100% sure other editors identified them earlier. But it took overwhelming evidence, multiple AEs and SPIs, before they got blocked. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. So is the problem that editors are taking too long to file an adequately presented SPI (your link is to a user talk page message, not an SPI filing), or that checkusers and SPI admins are failing to act on evidence that should have led them to act? Perhaps this is something that would be in-scope for this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe them as "checkuser and SPI admins," but some admins are making fixing this problem more difficult, rather than easier. This case is an example of that. This case arose out of obvious socks. Well-known, we've-been-complaining-about-them-for-months socks. Multiple-noticeboard-threads socks. And instead of acknowledging the obvious (PeleYoetz and HaOfa are socks), they--some editors, including some admins, some arbs--want to have an arbcom case about "the regulars." I can only speak for myself, but some folks made it much harder for me to report this disruption than it had to be. "AGF" isn't always the right move. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested to see folks workshop some possible statements/actions we could take to help fix the reticence to deal with PIA socking. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but--again, speaking just for myself--I have no idea how to make it better, and that's largely because I have no idea how this looks from "the other side". Why did SFR, Barkeep, and RTH refer the PeleYoetz and HaOfa AEs to arbcom instead of just... recognizing that those were obvious socks? Or that the evidence in the AEs was evidence of disruption? Just deal with the evidence I presented? Why did so many editors at the ARCA take the same position, that this was complex and involved disruption by good-faith editors, rather than being simple, straightforward, disruption by sockmasters we're all very familiar with? I don't know.

I only filed those AEs to get them to cycle the socks -- if one account was warned for disruption, they'd move to a new account. And it worked. PeleYoetz, Uppagus, OdNahwali, I forget the others, but a whole new "crop" showed themselves after I filed AEs against ABHammad, O.maximov, and (later) HaOfa. Then, I was able to connect the new crop to the old crop and that's enough behavioral evidence for an SPI. What I "wanted" when I filed those AEs was for admins to just apply the policies, issue warnings for edit warring (at least, or POV-pushing, though that's harder to prove), and let the sockmasters start using different accounts. That worked for a while, until the last two, when--for reasons I don't understand to this day--we ended up at PIA5 instead of issuing warnings (or 0RR or TBANs or whatever--the actual sanction doesn't matter).

That's my perspective on it -- I do not know the perspective of others. If I knew what the thought process was of referring admins -- how the evidence looked to them at the time, how they interpreted it -- then I might have some ideas for how to improve the system. Maybe someone else has ideas for how to improve the system. I hope. Levivich (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a suggestion about exactly that. You describe filing cases at WP:AE in order to "cycle the socks". (Insert joke about washing machine settings.) But AE isn't really equipped to handle that. WP:SPI is, and it seems to me that that's where stuff like that should go. Perhaps that, right there, is one of the things that has been contributing to AE having problems with dealing with this topic area. I'd suggest that AE admins should make a habit of saying something to the effect of "SPI is thataway". Maybe even put some sort of notice at the top of the page. AE is for CTOP, while SPI is for footware. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

One example is: wtf am I doing as a party in this case? I reported two socks to AE, and those AEs got sent to arbcom (with an involved admin being the one to do the reporting and set the original party list). Now that the editors I filed against in both AEs are globally locked, why am I still a party? Why is there a forum -- that, with the ARCA, has been open for many months now -- for people to complain about me, specifically? There are other socks I am aware of that I could file at SPI, but I'm not filing it. Because I don't want to deal with the blowback that I know will happen. And god forbid I'm ever wrong about an accusation! The risk/reward ratio for fighting this sock farm sucks. And it's not the sock farm that sets the risk/reward ratio, it's the bystanders, it's "the establishment" (admins, arbs). At no point was there any kind of equivalence between me and ABHammad, or between me and PeleYoetz, or between me and HaOfa. I am better than those editors, I am more valuable to the project, I am a good-faith user and they are not... and I want to be treated that way. But I'm not, instead I have to accept that I will be put on the same level as the socks. Shrug. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As an "SPI admin" and the blocker of AbHammad and HaOfa, I can say that dealing with Icewhiz or other prolific sockmasters who are good at evading detection is always awful. I spent hours going over the diffs, time charts, user interaction comparisons, and the rest of the behavioral evidence. Suspecting them is one thing, but being certain enough to indef based on behavior alone is quite another. We don't want to risk accidentally blocking an innocent person, so we need to be very sure. When the accounts have thousands of edits that's a miserable, time-consuming experience. But yes, if you think you have evidence on other accounts then please do open an SPI case. That's the only way to be sure it will be seen by someone experienced with sockpuppets. ANI/AE are not good venues for that, and even Arbs aren't always experts at identifying socks. The Wordsmith 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In that regard, it sounds to me like all the more reason for concerned editors to go to SPI first (before AE, if there are socks), and to be willing to allow SPI the needed time before escalating to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm minimizing the disruptiveness of this/these sock farm(s) -- it's disruptive, deceptive, I do not endorse it in any way, and in fact I wish the sock farm(s) would actually knock it off because although they sometimes make good contributions, they then get caught and blocked and then it actually has a negative impact on the cause they want to advance inasmuch as it is a real improvement to NPOV or the encyclopedia! -- it seems that SPI is catching them at a very high clip and that in general, Levivich or others find their evidence accepted and have no trouble getting those socks blocked. I'd be more inclined to think that the socking is a bigger problem in the topic area if we had evidence that more than 1 or 2 people in an RFC skews the result, or that the socks continue with impunity without getting caught for longer, or that good evidence is not being heeded. I also think we need to separate the socking issue from the other issues. Socking doesn't justify incivility -- WP:2WRONGS Andre🚐 22:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Socking doesn't justify incivility. I agree entirely with that. I can readily imagine that the persistent socking can cause editors to have some amount of exasperation, but there's a level of incivility, directed at editors who are obviously not socks, that requires ArbCom's attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Levivich or others find their evidence accepted and have no trouble getting those socks blocked is both true and not. Ultimately SPI worked; rather than closing the investigation after the technical evidence was inconclusive as judged by two CUs, it was kept open so other evidence could be presented. The Wordsmith talks about the hours they spent on behavioral stuff. I am guessing Levivich also spent hours putting together that evidence. I know I've spent hours on the technical side, getting some socks and not getting others. So this was by no means easy and I'm not sure it's ultimately fair to say there was "no trouble". And I really do hope that ArbCom is open to evidence around the ways socking are a problem in this topic area and the ways that might lead to what is making this hard for AE to deal with even as it also seems to be clearly starting from a premise that battleground editing also can't be the answer (which is a decent premise in my mind). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with Arbcom examining a broad swath of what constitutes ARBPIA and adjacent areas including socks, and I didn't mean Levivich or others don't go to a lot of trouble to get those SPI filed and accepted, or CUs and admins examining that I am sure takes a lot of effort and agonizing consideration, so I didn't mean to sound like I was downplaying that either. I just meant they have not encountered some kind of obstacle that prevented their case from being accepted: so, the "system worked" and honestly, it's not as slow as the slowest backlog on wiki. But that is a volunteer contribution. One that I thank people for having the eagle eyes and technical prowess to take on, mind you. But if people are so exasperated by deceptive socks that they resort to incivility or biting newcomers, they should take a step back from editing. Battlegrounding is a different argument. I have also gone to the trouble of identifying socks in adjacent areas, such as Arsi786 or Ultrabomb. Users also identified socks such as CarmenEsparzaAmoux, and FourPi/Irtapil/MWQs. I think it's reasonable to suspect that there may be unblocked socks at large in all of the different sides and camps of the dispute(s), and I think it's reasonable to assume that they will continue to pop up, and I think it's fair game to look at possible ways to address that. I just don't think it's reasonable to say people got "a bit testy" understandably dealing with annoying editors. That's not an excuse. I also don't think socking encompasses the whole of what the problem is in the area. Is it a factor? Sure. The main factor? I'm not convinced. Andre🚐 23:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

My advice would be that if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, file an SPI. If the accounts are also disruptive, the normal disciplinary process can run in parallel just like this Arbcom case is running at the same time as the SPI. As a specialist process, SPI is a little different from the broad ones like AE, ANI etc. Unless a case is obvious forum shopping there shouldn't be a problem with it. The Wordsmith 01:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good question that applies to any ban evading actor, although I'm not sure there is any evidentiary basis for a concern that it's "driving away potentially good users". It's not really even driving away sockpuppets. "labeling your opponents as sockpuppets is a good way to defeat the opposition" is not the case in my view. Firstly, that is not how SPI is used. It is used to identify and block people evading bans, and it is not an efficient and effective way to do that, let alone defeat the opposition. People who oppose the use of deception invest time because a) they believe (not always correctly of course) that an account is being used for ban evasion and b) they understand why sockpuppets are an important problem in the topic area. Now, if you ask the question "How many times do reporters and reported share the same POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict?', the answer is almost never. Why is that? Is it because SPI is a tool to defeat opponents? I don't think so. I think it more to do with what people pay attention to. People pay attention to obstacles and conflict, so they pay more attention to accounts getting in their way, reverting their edits etc. Obviously, people who employ deception and their facilitators would love everyone to think that SPI is just a tool being misused by partisan actors empowered by biased admins, but the reality is SPI appears to have very little impact on the topic area. It is easy to evade bans. It is hard to identify ban evasion. Much of the topic area's content has been and will continue to be written by people evading bans. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, for me, 'socks' and 'good users' are not distinct sets. This is not a useful way to categorize for me because there is a large overlap, if 'good' includes properties like knowledgeable, experienced, dedicated, hard-working etc. The people who employ ban evasion repeatedly are often good editors, albeit highly biased, pathologically dishonest and unsanctionable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally SPI is one of the least effective ways of getting rid of a perceived enemy. It requires a high level of evidence of a very specific pattern of behavior and, if you get it wrong, you've probably just made things worse for your side of the argument. SPI is a critical part of the safety structure of Misplaced Pages, and one I am personally passionate about, but it's best applied when it's either a slam-dunk the person is socking or where their behavior is so disruptive that you'd probably be better off at AE or AN/I anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful of spilling the beans: I recall that I on the Nocal sock-page once said that one way of noticing his socks, was that he reverted edits by "regulars" (like Zero, and me) in the area, but didn't care/notice when other editors did the exactly the same edits. Ie, he was just following certain editors around, he wasn't "watching" such-and-such an article.

I have deeply regretted writing that.

Afterwards, he has mostly stopped doing that, and it has become (at least for me) much more difficult to identify his socks (Nocal works in the tech-industry, and know every trick in the book, (plus, I'm sure, some not in any book) about how to avoid technical detection. If I had been an "IceWhiz socks" , this is exactly the sort of question I would have asked ;/ And no: I'm in no way implying that Animal lover is a IW sock, ;/ Just anyone asking such a question in public, is inadvertently possibly helping him, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Seven proposed parties

After reviewing discussions at AE, AN, ANI, NPOVN, and RSN since October 2023, I have determined that in addition to the current parties, the following seven individuals are among the most involved in the battleground environment surrounding Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes. I propose they be added as parties so this environment can be evaluated further. I've provided (15 or fewer) links for each individual below to demonstrate their engagement, each under a subheading instead of a full heading to avoid overwhelming the talk page. For simplicity, I've described editors who frequently !vote together as "allies" and editors who frequently land on opposite ends of arguments as "opponents". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Can you also notify each individual on their talk page, as one would when filing a case in the first instance, and leave diffs of doing so in each section? CaptainEek ⚓ 20:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Already notified, adding diffs now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I have answered each diff on my talk-page, User_talk:Huldra#Proposed_party_at_PIA5, and, looking at the results from those discussions: I stand by each diff, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Per the comment in the above thread: To consider new parties, a rationale with a limit of 250 words and 20 diffs should be provided here on the /Evidence talk page to demonstrate that a given editor's actions are both relevant to the case and that attempts to resolve this issue have previously been attempted without success. Can you provide diffs or links showing that attempts to resolve issues with these editors have been attempted and unsuccessful? - Aoidh (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Aoidh, I have a question about that. It's already been established, by ArbCom when you accepted this case, that the case scope satisfies the requirement of previous attempts to resolve having been attempted and failed. I have never before seen an ArbCom case where, additionally, there is a requirement to demonstrate this for every named party, individually. So long as the conduct documented in the diffs falls within the case scope, is there now a new requirement for prior dispute resolution with each individual named party? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is especially true since the current parties were chosen because they happened to participate in certain AEs. The links I added below are already far above the requirements to which arbcom held itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Really? "Certain AEs"? I've been involved in exactly one AE in my entire desultory Misplaced Pages career. It was regarding 1RR, and it ended without action, That was about a year ago. There hasn't been an effort to "resolve" anything with me (apart from that) as I haven't done anything that required resolving. Or have I? What was it, Thebiguglyalien? Coretheapple (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  The case scope is centered around the named parties, if additional named parties are being proposed then there should be evidence that they meet that same standard, that their conduct and their interaction with others is or is likely to be too complex to AE to address. @Thebiguglyalien: Simply participating in AE threads is not how the named parties were determined. I'll start a discussion with the other drafters about considering these additional parties, but I'll say upfront that unless evidence is provided that prior attempts to resolve an issue have been attempted (or their behavior is in some way so egregious that it warrants bypassing AE and going straight to ArbCom) that I am unlikely to support adding proposed parties. - Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've unfortunately been busy elsewhere, on and off wiki, and so have not had much time to focus on this case (only catching sporadic comments on this page). But I don't see an actual scope of the case in the case box as has been standard for the past 3 years. I also think it mistakes what the referring AE admin said to say the problem is only those parties. In fact I think ArbCom giving reasonable hearing to the idea that the real problem is not the regulars (an idea some of the regulars have adopted) would be helpful; there is reasonable evidence to support that contention. If true it would certainly inform how I think about future AE cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll address the missing scope parameter. The issue with PIA is not only these named parties, but the referrals were sent to us because certain issues were deemed too complex for AE to adequately address, and if specific parties are proposed there should be some evidence that they also meet that criteria. I'm not seeing evidence within these diffs that these seven editors have issues too complex for AE to address. We're not tying our hands by saying that's the criteria we discussed, but for the sake or transparency are giving editors advanced notice of what we're looking for when considering adding parties, which prior cases typically did not do when questions have been raised about the criteria for adding parties. - Aoidh (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I find that reasonable in theory but ignores the history of how we reached this point. A number of administrators said things were too hard. ArbCom's answer was "try these things and see if they help." Except it got stuck giving that answer for months. And in the mean time further conduct piled up until it got bad enough that a second referral was made. And only then did ArbCom decides to open a case. So if ArbCom closes this case in January and by July AE is saying "well things are too hard for these additional editors", I suspect ArbCom is going to be tired of this topic area and so you will have another referral that sits. Conversely if you let people present their best case against some/all of these editors active in the topic area and you find that they did nothing wrong it sends a signal both to people who would file a case and to AE admin about what the standard for misconduct is. And that's even ignoring that if SFR gets elected to ArbCom, AE is going to be really down in capacity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  In fact I think ArbCom giving reasonable hearing to the idea that the real problem is not the regulars (an idea some of the regulars have adopted) would be helpful - as one of the people who have advanced that view, I'm running into the issues of "what sort of evidence to I present to back it up" and, more importantly, "what do I actually want ArbCom to do here?" Part of the reason ArbCom cases tend to result in a lot of fallout for experienced power-users is because (WP:UNBLOCKABLES notwithstanding) they're easy to deal with; "the topic-area is a mess because the real world is a mess" is tricker and the one established tool we have, ECP, is already being used. I considered submitting as evidence a bunch of external articles I found that are worded in ways that are clearly advocating for people to come to Misplaced Pages and "fix" our articles, but I stopped because - what would that evidence even point to? What could anyone do with it? ArbCom can't improve press coverage of Misplaced Pages! --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do think a valuable evidence submission could include "here is coverage of the topic area on Wiki by external sources", which might make fertile ground for analysis of its accuracy, which could point to whether those external concerns (and thus their effect on our thinking) are overblown, or not. It might be something for us to tactfully acknowledge as a FoF. CaptainEek ⚓ 22:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  The case scope is centered around the named parties, if additional named parties are being proposed then there should be evidence that they meet that same standard, that their conduct and their interaction with others is or is likely to be too complex to AE to address. Well, if I were a named party, I'd be getting pretty scared about that, because that's tantamount to saying that ArbCom has already determined who the parties are who are going to need to be sanctioned, as opposed to ArbCom asking the community to present evidence, with ArbCom only deciding about sanctions after evaluating what the evidence does or doesn't show. Throughout the ridiculously long period of time that the case request was left open, multiple editors, including me, were saying that the parties lists were flawed. ArbCom told us that they were listening to us. Well, it appears now that you weren't. After that long delay, it appears now that ArbCom has determined that the current list of named parties is the case scope.

  There have been four, count them, four, previous cases in this topic area, and this is the fifth. Seems to me that you aren't going to solve anything by prejudging what the problems are. You should be welcoming the community coming forward with new perspectives, not erecting barriers. Of course I get it, that you don't want to put anyone through the stress of being added as a party without there being evidence that there is conduct that you need to address. But the scope of the case should be understood to be ongoing disruption in PIA and, yes, the failures of AE to handle all of it. Personally, I'm going to be able to give you that, for the evidence that I will propose, but I think ArbCom is at risk of bungling this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am quite open to adding new parties, and that is why we're having these talk page conversations. If folks have new parties to add, please suggest them. If there is an aspect of PIA that AE is failing to handle, I wanna know about that. CaptainEek ⚓ 22:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, I was surprised by Aoidh's scope above with a focus on the parties rather than some more refined version of ongoing disruption in PIA and, yes, the failures of AE to handle all of it. The latter seems more like what I, at least, was expecting on referral. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  That was the focus I had in mind since 7 October when I wrote the motion, which begins 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. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:Aoidh, your answer to User:Barkeep49 is written as if in agreement but it looks like disagreement to me. Looking at "interaction of specific editors" is the opposite of taking a global view. All of the current parties together contribute only 5-6% of ARBPIA article edits and doubling the number of parties would only raise it to 7-8%. It would be a big mistake to think that this small minority of edits produces a majority of disruption. On the contrary, there is an underlying chaos of inexperienced editors that the regulars keep under control despite their propensity to squabble with each other. Zero 13:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  My response was to point out that this shouldn't come as a surprise as this scope was specified two months ago. My intention with the motion was not to try to resolve the entirety of PIA but to focus specifically on the issue that AE was unable to handle, and with that in mind I'm being transparent about what I'm looking with new parties, which is evidence that potential added parties have engaged in behavior that AE was unable to handle. If doubling the number of parties would still only account for a small percentage of the edits and potential disruption, then the case likely wouldn't substantively address the broader issue and would shift the focus away from the narrower issue, reducing the opportunity to solve either. This isn't the first case in the PIA topic area, and I would much rather focus on a specific identified issue thoroughly than to once again skim the surface of the entire topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Does that mean all evidence should be about the named parties? That doesn't currently seem to be the case. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Aoidh, I hope your examination will include looking into whether "AE was unable to handle" is a correct statement. Personally I did not ever see a convincing argument and it was mostly the opinion of a few isolated admins. The sudden addiction at AE to referring everything to ArbCom shows no sign of slowing and, unless you are looking forward to PIA6, PIA7 and PIA8, you might consider doing something about that. Zero 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I too wish there was more admin capacity at AE. This may indeed mean that some things that would get referred under current conditions could be handled there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Admins who focus on AE have a tendency to burn out after a year or two. I think they are also often targeted more than admins who work in other areas of the project. We're lucky to have a few admins who pitch in there, reviewing cases because it's an area where experience really helps. But it's not a popular area of the project for admins to dabble in. Liz 04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:ABHammad

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199171

• 2024-06-07 – Supported sanctions against opponent Jdiala as proposed by ally FortunateSons at AE
• 2024-07-31 – Subject to 0RR for battleground behavior
• 2024-08-09 – Supported action against opponent Bluethricecreamman as proposed by ally Billedmammal at AE
• 2024-08-12 – Supported boomerang against opponent Levivich at AE
• 2024-09-28 – Opposed sanctions against ally EnfantDeLaVille (Icewhiz sock) as proposed by opponent Vice regent at AE
• 2024-10-30 – Proposed sanctions against opponent Makeandtoss at AE
• 2024-11-07 – Made accusations against opponent Nableezy at AE
• 2024-11-07 – Made accusations against opponent Iskandar323 at AE
• 2024-11-18 – Attempted to enforce opponent Nishidani's topic ban on blocking admin's talk page after it ended

User:Coretheapple

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199183

• 2023-12-16 – Defended ally Andrevan against opponent Nableezy at AE
• 2023-12-18 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
• 2023-12-27 – Supported sanctions against opponent Nableezy at AE
• 2024-01-03 – Opposed sanctions against ally Dovidroth at AE
• 2024-01-14 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-02-14 – Supported sanctions against opponent Nishidani as proposed by ally Drsmoo at AE
• 2024-03-11 – Persistent heated argument with opponent Nableezy in the Tablet RSN discussion
• 2024-03-26 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Al Jazeera RSN discussion
• 2024-04-11 – Supported to pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League RSN discussion
• 2024-06-19 – Supported the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League close discussion at AN
• 2024-10-15 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Palestine Chronicle RSN discussion

User:FortunateSons

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199191

• 2024-01-09 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-01-17 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Euro-Med Monitor RSN discussion
• 2024-02-12 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
• 2024-03-12 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Norman Finkelstein RSN discussion
• 2024-03-19 – Opposed the pro-Palestine source in the Middle East Monitor RSN discussion
• 2024-04-07 – Supported the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League RSN discussion
• 2024-04-23 – Reported opponent JDiala at AN for userpage content
• 2024-05-21 – Challenged the neutrality of Weaponization of antisemitism, written by opponent Onceinawhile, at NPOVN
• 2024-06-03 – Reported opponent JDiala at AE, resulting in a tban for JDiala
• 2024-06-18 – Supported the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation close discussion at AN
• 2024-06-24 – Opposed sanctions against ally Monopoly31121993(2) as proposed by opponent Selfstudier at AE
• 2024-08-02 – Supported sanctions against opponent Dimadick for alleged antisemitic comments
• 2024-08-03 – Supported action against opponent Astropulse as proposed by ally Billedmammal at AE
• 2024-09-25 – Supported the pro-Israel source in the Jewish Chronicle RSN discussion

User:Huldra

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199198

• 2024-02-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-02-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
• 2024-02-14 – Opposed sanctions against ally Nishidani as proposed by opponent Drsmoo at AE
• 2024-04-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Norman Finkelstein RSN discussion
• 2024-04-13 – Opposed the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League RSN discussion
• 2024-08-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Al Jazeera RSN discussion
• 2024-11-11 – Opposed sanctions against ally Iskandar323 as proposed by opponent BilledMammal at AE
• 2024-11-12 – Accusation against opponent BilledMammal at AN
• 2024-11-12 – Defended ally Nableezy at AE

User:NadVolum

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199196

• 2023-11-20 – Inflammatory comment at NPOVN
• 2024-01-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-01-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Euro-Med Monitor RSN discussion
• 2024-01-19 – Made and retracted a "run by jews" comment at the Euro-Med Monitor RSN discussion
• 2024-02-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
• 2024-03-11 – Opposed the pro-Israel source source in the Tablet RSN discussion
• 2024-03-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Middle East Monitor RSN discussion
• 2024-06-09 – Voiced support for contested sourcing used in Gaza Health Ministry at NPOVN
• 2024-11-15 – Protested ally Nishidani's tban

User:Nishidani

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199207

• 2024-01-21 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-02-13 – Inflammatory "so-called diaspora" comment
• 2024-02-20 – Warned at AE for inflammatory language
• 2024-03-14 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Norman Finkelstein RSN discussion
• 2024-04-07 – Opposed the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League RSN discussion
• 2024-05-21 – Hostile comment defending a pro-Palestine article and opposing the corresponding pro-Israel article at NPOVN
• 2024-08-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Al Jazeera RSN discussion
• 2024-10-23 – Defended ally Nableezy's inflammatory userpage at ANI
• 2024-10-24 – Three-week tban for inflammatory language

  Inclined to add as previously subject to multiple AE sanctions, including a three week tban. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Vice regent

Notified: Special:Diff/1261199208

• 2023-10-23 – Implied a boomerang against opponent Homerethegreat at AN
• 2023-10-25 – Challenged the neutrality and AfD results for civilian casualty lists at NPOVN
• 2023-12-11 – Filed 3RR against opponent Homerethegreat, closed as stale
• 2023-12-15 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
• 2023-12-27 – Protested tban against ally Nableezy
• 2023-12-29 – Called for action against opponents Homerethegreat and Marokwitz at ANI
• 2024-01-02 – Supported sanctions against opponent Dovidroth at AE
• 2024-01-11 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
• 2024-01-31 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada close discussion at AN
• 2024-05-21 – Defended ally Makeandtoss at AE
• 2024-07-12 – Joined allies in accusing a newly active account of EC gaming
• 2024-08-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Al Jazeera RSN discussion
• 2024-09-28 – Opposed the pro-Israel source in the Jewish Chronicle RSN discussion
• 2024-11-11 – Defended ally Iskandar323 at AE

  I am inclined to add Vice regent given that they were previously sanctioned in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics, and there are similar allegations being made here. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:CaptainEek Wouldn't this go against Double jeopardy? Same for Nishidanis case? Huldra (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Huldra First, I'll give my classic answer that ArbCom is not a court and shouldn't be like one. Second, double jeopardy means that the same person may not be tried twice for the same offense in the same court. Here, ArbCom and AE are not the same court (the real-world example is that a person may be tried in both state and federal court for the same crime). ArbCom can and has reheard issues that were previously heard at AE, AN, and ANI. In fact, it is built into our design that we only hear cases where existing methods have failed to solve the problem. Further, a previous sanction in the same court can be used to enhance a future sanction. So, as applied to Vice Regent, we're not going to relitigate the evidence that led to his IranPol sanction, because that really would be double jeopardy, and not relevant to PIA. But we can consider that warning here insofar as it may lead to a stronger sanction than he might have otherwise received. CaptainEek ⚓ 00:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC).

  User:CaptainEek Thank you for your reply. While I accept that ArbCom is not a court, I am not sure you are always right about Double jeopardy being only about the same court: In Israel there has the last couple of years been a huge debate about a new law, which critics say- would make Israeli courts less independent of politicians (read: Netanyahu) One of the huge worries (for some Israelis) is that if the courts are not seem to be "independent", the International courts could step in and judge them instead. (the thinking is, from what I understand, that the Israeli courts would be more lenient). So if you can get a trial in an (independent) Israeli court, double jeopardy makes sure you don't get dragged before an international court, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Huldra At last check ArbCom was not taking pointers from the Israeli court system, so I don't think that's something to worry about :) CaptainEek ⚓ 21:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:CaptainEek wikipedia of course can (and will) make its own rules. However, Arb.com might undermine the AE -process, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of completely missing the mark (which wouldn’t be uncommon for someone not done with their legal education, in my defence), this is broadly true, but not problematic in this case. The question of double jeopardy by the ICC is discussed by scholarship and not entirely resolved; regarding the Israeli courts, the concern isn’t leniency (within reason), it’s the lack of ability to genuinely prosecute at all, and therefore basically “not counting as a court”. However, this isn’t really relevant here: If one were to treat ArbCom as a court (which I wouldn’t), it’s closer to a supreme or constitutional court, which can re-hear “appeals” of sufficient significance without double jeopardy. In addition (at least I hope), the remedies imposed aren’t going to be a simple “retrial/resentencing”, but instead either using existing evidence to sanction different policy violations (example: pattern of sanctioned POV-pushing and incivility -> WP:BATTLEGROUND) or hearing evidence that was referred up by AE/Admins, neither of which would be double jeopardy as it is generally understood. FortunateSons (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I see it, it's possible to overthink this. Neither Misplaced Pages nor ArbCom follow court procedures (such as rules of evidence), full stop. They never have. There have been numerous ArbCom cases where editors who were previously sanctioned at AE have ended up with further sanctions from ArbCom. If something seems unfair, then one should argue that it's unfair, but one should do it in terms of general understanding of fairness, not of legal terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment re above

I am new to this process so kindly advise if this is out of line, but at the top of this page it says that "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)." OK. I can't speak for the others but concerning myself, what "misbehavior" is accused here concerning me? What did I do wrong except participate in a particularly unpleasant subject area, which I agree in retrospect is not a good idea? In my most recent comment cited above, for instance, I said I agree with Chess and Alaexis. Clearly this is not a reliable source. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC). Was that a bad thing? What rule did I break? Not only is misbehavior not proven, there is no accusation of misbehavior, just participation in discussions. Again, feel free to delete or whatever if this is not an appropriate comment or should be elsewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say this: if someone consistently supports the stances/editors that benefit the Israeli POV and opposes those that benefit a Palestinian POV, or vise versa, then they should have their behavior scrutinized. If someone says they don't understand why that's an issue or tries to explain why their side was "right" in every single instance, they should absolutely have their behavior scrutinized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well; I actually mostly agree with this. But such a list is pretty meaningless unless you look at the results of the discussions: eg. I chose option 1 for Al Jazeera, result was SNOW close option 1. Should my choice there then be held against me? I go through all my diffs here, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If the criteria for inclusion in the case is that one should be included as a party if one always takes a certain position for or against either the subject matter or in alighment with (or against) a certain editor, which I think is being suggested here, then I suppose yes it would be held against you no matter the outcome of the discussions. I don't see what bearing it would have as to whether the discussion went in one direction or another. In other words, that is being suggested as inherently wrong, or at least I think it is. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for a change, I agree with you and find I have determined that in addition to the current parties somewhat presumptuous. Editors have queried the party list, that's true, but SFR in the Prelims made different suggestions for a party list that were more appropriate imo. Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also looked at the activity of the current parties while looking at these discussions. With maybe one or two exceptions, I would have proposed adding the current parties as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? Scrutinized for what? What is the misbehavior here? Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Or are you simply suggesting that if an editor feels a certain way (e.g. that Source X is not a reliable source) that he should not express it if his view aligns with other specific editors, and if he does, then doggone it, he should definitely be a party to an arbitration. No need to allege misconduct. That is enough. Is that what you're saying? Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In #Parties list, above, the person I was asking about is also included in the list here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I commend TBUA for posting diffs and identifying what the (alleged) problem is, in a topic area that sees a lot of sweeping vague aspersions. But I caution against drawing any conclusions based on how often someone expresses a view that is "pro-Palestine" or "pro-Israel". Think about how it would look if we ran this analysis in other topic areas: pro-Trump v. anti-Trump, pro-Russia v. pro-Ukraine, pro-LGBTQ v. anti-LGBTQ, right-wing v. left-wing, etc. etc. We'd find that--surprise!--there are many editors who consistently vote anti-Trump, pro-Ukraine, pro-LGBTQ, left-wing... and editors who consistently vote the opposite way. Should we sanction them for that? Is that a policy violation? Of what policy? Levivich (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question, User:Levivich: or is it only where admins are "at their wit's end", where this should be the case? If so, might I remind people that both the number views and the number of edits and editors have increased massively in the IP area after 7 oct. When a city has a huge population increase, there will be more work for the "sherifs", even if the population hasn't gotten more "criminal", Huldra (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been involved in many contentious topic areas, and typically people do line up on one "side" or another. When I participated in BP after the oil spill, I was probably not viewed by the BP employee who edited there as favorable to his company. However I would like to think that my participation was constructive, or at least not unconstructive. I think that maintaining that editing is ipso facto improper due not to misbehavior but rather to the alignment thereof is not helpful. I don't see how it advances what I imagine is being done here. Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for specific all-caps links, WP:DISRUPTIVE (per WP:TENDENTIOUS) and WP:NPOV (per WP:CPUSH) will be the main ones. WP:BATTLEGROUND is also worth considering, but that's already been discussed to death. And to answer your other question, yes. If someone consistently promotes wording and sources that take a pro-/anti- stance on Donald Trump for example, contradicts their own arguments when it no longer casts him in a positive/negative light, routinely tries to get editors who take the opposite stance in trouble, always come to defend editors who share their stance, etc, then yes. They are engaging tendentiously. I don't usually talk about my political views onwiki, but I am no fan of Donald Trump, to put it lightly. I still opposed putting "convicted felon" in the lead of his article and adding his name to a template about fascism in RfCs, and I still chastise people who use Misplaced Pages as a means of soapboxing against him, because I leave my personal views at the door as much as I can. There are a small handful of topics where I do have a strong emotional response to them, but you wouldn't know them because I don't edit in those areas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you're saying here, but what's required on this page is "clear evidence," not innuendo. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• The issue is that when a topic area is the focus of major real-world disputes which stretch across entire swaths of sources, it's entirely reasonable for editors to fall into camps based on which types of sources they consider reliable. Compounding this is the fact that when there are some bad actors with overtly tendentious aims in a topic area, you tend to get other editors who seek to push back against this, which can itself result in one-sided editing. I think that can lead to WP:BATTLEGROUND and even tendentious editing itself, but the line is very hard to draw. And there's also the possibility (which we do have to at least entertain) that our articles on such-and-such a topic are genuinely broadly biased in one particular direction, in which case editors whose actions in the topic area largely consist of pushing it in the other direction are needed. All of this is why proving WP:CPUSH is so hard (and I can say from past experience that ArbCom almost never sanctions someone for it without some other secondary offense that makes it obvious.) I do think that pointing out that someone is taking inconsistent stances on underlying policy is a good approach to showing that they're editing tendentiously and in bad faith (eg. to use an example from the evidence, someone who supports "massacre" in an article title when it favors one side and opposes it in another had better have some really good explanation for why the two situations are different), but it is actually necessary to have some sort of concrete evidence of that nature beyond "they broadly edit from perspective X". Having a perspective isn't the same as editing tendentiously as long as they're editing from a good-faith belief that their perspective is actually borne out by the sources as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice on my talk page about this. However I can think of better things to spend my life on so I won't be following anything here. NadVolum (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. I’m happy to discuss any specific wrongdoing of mine (which is quite possible, but I don’t think any behavior listed here is inappropriate), but as nothing is specifically alleged, I do not see anything specific to respond to. In addition, I‘m sure one can find many instances of me taking a „Pro-Palestinian“ or generally neutral/productive position, such as acknowledging the issue with the old entry in the RFCBEFORE for the ADL, supporting CUs against “allies” and also otherwise productively and fairly engaging in discussions; I’m sure the same can be said about my “allies” and “opponents”. Lastly, even in the worst case, and even if this was the entire pattern, the only thing it would show was bias, which (as discussed by Aquillion above) is both common and not a violation of policy.

Minor note and not really of relevance, but I don’t think ending up with the consensus is a reasonable metric for (or against) bias/CPUSH: after all, there isn’t really a way to know whether or not such a consensus (particularly in case of a localcon) is actually a true and complete assessment of the sources or an expression of systemic bias FortunateSons (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: "I don’t think ending up with the consensus is a reasonable metric for (or against) bias/CPUSH"...I think this is probably right, especially given that all of the processes involving consensus in PIA seem to sample such a tiny part of the editor population. But I guess we are in hand waving/grasping for straws territory when it comes to sensibly measuring bias/CPUSH. I've never really understood why consensus is given so much weight anyway. Why would there be a stable consensus? Seems like a strange expectation. It's a contentious topic area not a consensus topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to stick to asking and answering questions editors have the capacity to answer moderately reliably. Questions like 'Does this revision comply with the rules, yes or no?'. That does not include, in my view, questions about complex patterns in an ocean of revisions, how to label an editor (using anything but objective labels like extendedconfirmed, ban evading sockpuppet), and certainly not bias and the effects of bias in anything but the most unambiguous cases where almost everyone agrees. The idea that I can reliably assign objective bias or tendentiousness etc. scores, for what should be the entire set of another editor's revisions, in context, or at least a large enough sample, and make a decision based on those assessments in a complex multi-agent system like the topic area that will make the topic area 'better' is just nonsense as far as I'm concerned. The idea that the topic area can be managed by treating a small set of editors who make a small percentage of the total number of revisions like knobs that can be turned by using sanctions or blocks is patently false, as history shows. Editors are fungible. Sanctions are unenforceable. Who knows, perhaps the net effects of things like the adversarial nature of the topic area, the various biases, maybe even the presence of experienced editors evading their bans might be positive rather than negative. How would we even know? So much depends on the scale you choose to look at things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I reject the idea that editors are fungible. They're real human beings who bring unique skills, writing abilities, and perspectives. As to your latter half, I must be reading you wrong, because it seems like you're saying that socking is a good thing? CaptainEek ⚓ 17:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think experienced editors are important, but I don't really think ban-evasion can be a good thing. Among other things, it reduces trust between editors; the suspicion that the person you're arguing with might be a banned sock in disguise makes people less willing to give new editors slack and can lead to WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities. And beyond that, banned users were banned for very good reasons - especially due to behavior that tends to drive away other editors. You say above that you feel that someone can be a good editor despite being highly biased, pathologically dishonest and unsanctionable, but if those things drive away other good editors then they're a net negative to the project. And worse, there's a perverse incentive here - if they could get away with it, many editors in controversial topic areas would be extremely happy to drive away everyone they consider a net negative - a category that would inevitably have a lot of overlap with people they are in disputes with! If lots of editors were allowed to act on that logic the topic area would become completely unbearable. In fact, the most well-known sock in the topic area, Icewhiz, was IIRC originally banned specifically for directing harassment against editors he disagreed with in order to drive them from the project. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything in both of these comments. Editors are real human beings who bring unique skills, writing abilities, and perspectives, at least until next year or so when some of them might be AI agents. Perhaps fungible is a clumsy overstatement. It was intended as an observation of the topic area over the many years I've been observing it. People come and go, good people and bad people. It's just an empirical fact. It's also connected to the next sentence, that sanctions are unenforceable because of ban evasion. Is socking a good thing or a bad thing? It is a bad thing in that it splits the population into sanctionable and unsanctionable classes of accounts with different payoff matrices and causes endless trouble. But if you assign a low value to honesty, authenticity, the fire-starter aspect etc. and a high value to content generation, it can apparently be a good thing. Here we see an example of a test widely used by the community in the context of ban evading actors - "At its simplest, a contribution is either constructive or it's not." If it is only a bad thing why are articles created or very extensively edited by socks retained (example A, example B)? If it is only a bad thing why doesn't Wikimedia try much harder to solve the problem? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Thebiguglyalien: I wonder: what criteria was used for including us 7? The original named editors were named (AFAIK) because they had commented in AE, (even if only asking a question): that seem to me a rather haphazard way of choosing "accused". But I don't see any rational what so ever for choosing us 7? Beyond that we have commented consistently in a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli way. But if that is the only criteria, I miss a lot of editors, Eg: Chess, Eladkarmel, XDanielx, for a start, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, CaptainEek, and Aoidh: I would still like an answer to my question above, thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that question can be answered by me or Aoidh. I don't know why Alien chose those seven. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:CaptainEek ok, understood. But does this mean that anyone can suggest further parties? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

These were the names that I was able to determine were both regularly present in these discussions within the scope I decided on beforehand (the listed discussion boards) and tendentiously favored one side over the other. If there are other editors who have similar patterns that I wasn't able to find, then by all means find the links and I'll endorse adding them as well. Alternatively, if I'm mistaken and you have a history of prioritizing policy and consistent logic in !votes/discussions rather than defaulting to the position that benefits the Palestinian cause, I'll strike your name from this list assuming you don't wish to be a party. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Although Thebiguglyalien's list includes a few people more deserving of being parties than some of the present parties, the reasons given are not adequate. Everyone who edits in ARBPIA has a POV and giving examples of it doesn't distinguish anyone from anyone else. Unfortunately, some of the "evidence" so far makes this same error of logic. Zero 13:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned by the particular criteria used by any editor to recommend "targets" of these proceedings, as any editor can recommend anyone. I've already wasted too much energy griping on that. But I am concerned about how editors will be added by Arbcom, assuming any are, and generally what Arbcom is seeking to accomplish in this arbitration. I sense that the reluctance to even start this case was grounded in a well-warranted fear that it would be futile. My two cents is that unless these "P/I" articles are to be deleted en masse and we admit that we cannot properly police them (a perfectly logical action IMO) we need to restore the purpose of Misplaced Pages to the editing of these articles, which is to bring to bear the "genius of crowds" and encourage "dilettantes," editors who are not regulars in the subject matter, to participate in as large numbers as possible. Ensure that they are not subject to hostility by editors seeking to WP:OWN the content and frequently succeeding in doing so.

Editors want to believe that they can make a positive contribution when they contribute to a subject area. They cannot do so when it becomes plain that "regulars" are effectively controlling the content by sheer numbers and intensity of feeling. I would hope that Arbcom's aim here should be to restore the general "community" to these articles. And by "community" I would include new and unregistered editors. We should consider ditching the 30/500 rule and restoring true "encyclopedia anyone can edit" ethos to these articles. Everything done by Arbcom, including "target selection," should be in that area. And please do not discard out of hand the possibility of simply deleting every P/I article. If we can't police the behavior in these articles, if nothing works, admit that we as a community have failed and act accordingly. Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with this. The 30/500 rule is one of the few things in the topic area actually working; the nature of AE / ArbCom tends to put more focus on established editors, but the fact is that drive-by editing in this topic area by editors whose views of the topic are shaped by external coverage of the sort I listed in my evidence is the most serious problem here. I'll add more evidence of the serious problems the 30/500 rule is preventing and the problems caused by more "casual" users - part of the issue with evidence in ArbCom cases is that monofocus on a short list of parties can result in losing track of the larger state of the topic area. If I add the sorts of talk-page comments that the 30/500 rule is preventing, maybe we can use the analysis phase to hash out whether they would be an improvement; but I think the answer is pretty clearly no. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the views of all editors, registered or not, are shaped by external coverage. We've had unregistered editing in many contentious areas over the years without harmful side effects. Unregistered users are people too, and sometimes make excellent contributions. I noted one example on my user page. The 500/30 rule promotes the view among many outside Misplaced Pages that it really isn't the encyclopedia everyone can edit, and that if they try they they'll get the bum's rush. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that experienced editors know how to comport themselves in controversial topic areas, and know the policies they have to follow when doing so; this is a vital part of what makes these topic areas run smoothly. Newer editors often to do not, which leads to revert-warring, aspersions, WP:FORUM digressions, and other things of that nature. When it's just one or two new editors we can (and must) take the time to teach them how things work; but, as in a situation like this, when there's an entire flood of new or inexperienced users determined to edit from a particular perspective in a small number of articles, it becomes untenable and they're better off being sent to areas that are less of a flashpoint to learn how to edit. This is particularly true when much of the external coverage encourages them to be hostile towards Misplaced Pages as a whole, which makes them much less likely to listen to gentle requests and means that without ECR most of them would have to be dragged through WP:AE, hardly a more endearing process - again, see my evidence; it's not reasonable to expect editors to edit in an environment where they have to handle constant attacks of the ones I documented (and dealing with those without the blunt force of the 30/500 rule wastes massive amounts of editor time and energy.) Most of the comments that got removed from Zionism under the 30/500 rule, in particular, are caustic on the level of the ones I listed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

ABRPIA got vastly better when 30/500 was introduced. This was one of the most positive things ArbCom ever did for the area and undoing it would be catastrophic. Zero 00:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. However, perusing the Evidence page it's clear that the concerns of the community lie elsewhere. I suggest that issues concerning new and unregistered editors be dealt with through semiprotection as warranted rather than the harsh, permanent "keep out" sign currently in place that totally locks out contributions from the general public. As for Zero's comment: I find it hard to believe that these pages are "vastly better" than at any previous point. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

2/3 of the articles in the topic area are open to the general public because they are not EC protected. They make tens of thousands of edits, more than the top 10 contributors to article space combined, I think. Only 1/3 of their edits are reverted. That does not mean 2/3 were good of course. The concerns of the community probably don't include this kind of information because we can't see it or pay attention to it. It is too complicated. We can see the big things, the personalities, even though their contributions in article space amount to small percentages of the total. You can see this in the nature of the concerns presented. And we can't even seem to get the personalities right because in a post-Oct 7 world, the most significant editors in terms of revisions in article space appear to be accounts like Borgenland, Pachu Kannan, Achmad Rachmani and the sock CarmenEsparzaAmoux. The editors who invest the most time in discussion, something that Misplaced Pages encourages for some reason, are different of course. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Imposing EC restrictions on articles in the topic area is not terribly complicated, and neither is enforcement. I hope that Arbcom does not waste excessive amounts of time in addressing this "issue." Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@arbs: Real life has come along and put things in perspective for me. If there's anything specific needed of me or a specific way I can help, ping me and let me know what exactly I can do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien are there any cases in which my behaviour in the A-I area was referred to Arb enforcement or to ANI? It seems like a very big jump to go from absolutely no complaints about my behavior to having it examined in a full blown arbitration case. The raison d'etre of an arb case is to handle problems that are too big for AE or ANI. I would say the same for all other parties you suggest.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Diff extension

I've been presenting evidence pointing to the environment outside of Misplaced Pages and likely-related problems with problematic drive-by edits by new and inexperienced users; however, by its nature, this requires a lot of diffs, so I'm near the limit. I'd like to request a diff-limit extension. --Aquillion (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion Roughly how many more were you thinking? CaptainEek ⚓ 04:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose another 50? I'm not sure I'd use all of that but trying to show broad problems uses up a lot and I ought to look at other flashpoint articles in the topic area to get a sense of if it's the whole topic or just a few articles that are facing this level of drive-by problems, too. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion oops realized I didn't reply to you. Let's start at 25 more diffs and see if that works? CaptainEek ⚓ 17:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on intended scope

I am uncertain as to which section of the workshop page to put this, so I'll ask here & if needed, I'll preemptively give permission to others to move this to the correct section (& apologize for the inconvenience).

I know there's been discussion on what the scope is, who should be party to this case & if this case should cover structural issues in the area, but the specifics still seem unclear. So, in an attempt to prevent further meandering deliberation, I'd like to request a more defined scope.

More specifically, I'd like to clarify if the intended scope of this case is focused on editor behavior in particular or the topic area of WP:PIA as a whole? I'm worried that, without a more defined scope, this case will inevitably spiral out into an unmanageable mess, as was the initial reason this case was brought here.

I also think this type of clarification would help participants focus their evidence & discussion in a more constructive manner & will help streamline the arbitrators' arduous task of judging this case when it's over. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Moved from the workshop talk. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The drafters recognize that the scope was somewhat unclear. We thus clarify that the scope is "The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA." Our goal is to focus on named parties so as to keep this case manageable for both the Committee and the community. Because we did not clarify this earlier, we will be modifying the timeline of the case slightly.First, we will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on this page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, we are inclined to only add parties who have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, we will need evidence as why such an attempt would have been ineffective.Second, we will extend the evidence phase of the case by one week to ensure that newly added parties have adequate time to engage in the case. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it was wise to extend the evidence phase of this case. Given the innumerable cases at AE, ANI, AN and on article talk pages, I expected quite a bit more evidence to be presented than has happened so far. Some of the most involved editors haven't even been active during this case. I think extending the time for an additional week might encourage editors who have been delaying their participation for some reason. Liz 09:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else except myself, Liz, but the reason I haven't posted any evidence (and probably won't) is because any evidence of disruption in PIA I'm aware of is out of scope for this case, given the way the scope and the requirement for proposing new parties was set for this case. When you and the others join the committee after the 1st, I may ask arbcom to change the scope (but maybe not, I haven't decided yet). Levivich (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Word limits

AndreJustAndre, you are now at ~1,196 words in your section. Please either cut down to 1,000 words or request an extension. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

OK Andre🚐 02:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

New approaches desperately needed

The problem with contentious topic areas is not the dedicated, good faith editors who occasionally get a bit testy with the avalanche of socks and disingenuous civil POV-pushers they have to deal with on a daily basis. Sanctioning them will solve exactly NOTHING - indeed all it ever does is play into the hands of the bad actors. The edit warring, the endless arm-wrestling on talk pages, and the occasional testy response are merely symptoms of the great underlying problem. And that problem is the utterly broken and ineffectual dispute resolution processes we have in place. Until they are fixed, the misery generated in these topic areas is just going to go on and on, forever.

Misplaced Pages has been around a long time now, in many ways it's improved out of sight and so has its reputation. That is, excepting the one area of politically contentious topics, where our reputation is still in the toilet. It's a scandal that after 20 years this is still the case. It's the area that is most harmful to our reputation, and fixing it should be the number one priority. Yet one comes to these sad pages, year after year, to see essentially the same issues being dealt with via essentially the same broken processes. Fiddling around the edges is all the community ever appears to have the will to do.

The point here is that we need to start thinking outside the little boxes that were established two decades ago and have barely been expanded since. That is, if we are really serious about creating an encyclopedia that has broad credibility.

Now, it's far too long since I was taking an interest in contentious topics to make any concrete proposals today, but here are a couple of thoughts just from looking at some of the evidence presented in this case with regard to RFCs, page moves and deletion discussions. Given that the numbers tend to be even on both sides, how can we ever expect anything other than deadlock from these discussions? So here's one suggestion: prohibit involved users from !voting in such discussions. Allow them to state an opinion, but in a separate, non-!voting section; in short, leave the actual !voting to non-involved users only. To encourage participation, start a new noticeboard dedicated solely to RFC, page move and deletion discussions in contentious topic areas. And maybe limit the eligible !voters further by requiring that they have, say, a minimum of 12 months on the project and 10,000 edits, because the extended-confirmed limit is clearly an open invitation to socks.

This is basically just one possible example of how we could start thinking outside the box and creating processes that are much more resistant to WP:GAMING and that have the potential to break the endless deadlocks, bringing down the temperature on these pages and ultimately encouraging wider community participation. Because unless and until we start trying new solutions, we are going to go on experiencing the same incredibly time-wasting disputation, and suffering from the same lack of broad credibility, that we have now. How many are in favour of that? Gatoclass (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that the numbers tend to be even on both sides, how can we ever expect anything other than deadlock from these discussions some would say that NPOV and our consensus system would suggest that if the number of qualified editors approaches even, that means we need to balance and compromise to find a middle ground or a third way, or preserve the status quo until such compromises or solutions present themselves, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some might argue that for NPOV we should expect the pages and their content to reflect the fact that there are at least two duelling narratives for many questions and appropriately balance them. Andre🚐 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, that ignores the issue of sockpuppetry, which is rife in these topic areas. Secondly, it's just not a good idea to have these topics left largely in the hands of zealots of one stripe or another, while more moderate or less biased or dedicated users flee them. Then there is the widespread perception in society at large that Misplaced Pages simply does not deal well with politically contentious topic areas, our reputation in that regard is poor. Finally, we simply need better, more streamlined processes that do not burn up vast amounts of the community's time and energy dealing with them. Surely that much must be clear by now. Gatoclass (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Closers already discount and strike out sockpuppet !votes, and I think a new discussion can often be started if the discussion was bogged down by canvassing and sockpuppetry. Could we do a better job of finding socks? I think so, there's a discussion at the village pump about it, though I can't see that finding a consensus but who knows. I wrote up my thoughts about a similar proposal in 2018. I don't think the proposal you articulated is pragmatic and actionable. There just isn't enough activity in many of these discussions to sustain separate sections for regulars. There's also the issue of ARBECR to consider. I'm more inclined not to discount the incivility that you hand-waved away as "a bit testy." That civility can be a major issue and is one of our most important policies. I think a bit more empathy in this area would go a long way. Andre🚐 02:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Closers discount sock edits if they know which ones they are, but experience shows that careful socks take part in many discussions before they are detected. There are probably plenty that are never detected. People brought by external/stealth canvassing are hardly ever detected. It is definitely not true that the minor contributors have lesser POVs than the regulars, but it is true that on average they have less knowledge of the subject. I think that preventing the experienced editors from !voting will only serve to put decisions into the hands of people less able to come to an informed outcome. While I share User:Gatoclass's desire for better dispute resolution processes, this idea will not work alas. Zero 03:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if closers could discount sockpuppet votes for unidentified socks, but they can't. We're not good at identifying ban evading accounts. It's difficult. They can be active for a long time. I recently looked at half a million randomly selected articles to compare the ban evasion rates with the topic area, and it seems that as PIA editors, we are far more likely to be dishonest than your average editor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not convinced Zero that less well informed users could not reach appropriate conclusions - after all, involved users would still be able to make their case, and disinterested parties should be capable of assessing whose is the more persuasive. But admittedly bias might still creep in.

So here's a less radical proposal to begin with. While extended-confirmed users may edit these articles, set the higher standard for !voting on RFCs/page moves/deletion discussions. So again, anybody can participate, but only users with 12 months service and 10,000 edits can !vote. That at least would make socks work a lot harder, as well as making them easier to identify. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As a general point, I do think barriers are probably a way to adjust the cost/benefit ratio associated with ban evasion in a world where eradicating or effectively suppressing it is not possible in practice. For the most part, the people who employ ban evasion in PIA are experienced editors, rational-ish actors, and you can imagine there is a point, probably a different point for each editor, where the benefit of their normal edits might outweigh the cost of the POV pushing shenanigans, depending on the scale you choose to measure it i.e. across all of Misplaced Pages or just inside the topic area. The EC requirement imposes a 500 edit pay-to-play cost, which appears to be too cheap, the cost of ban evasion still far exceeds the benefit. But maybe there are barriers, pay-to-play arrangements that might result in the benefits outweighing the costs. I have no idea what they would be though. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How about "only editors who bring a relevant reliable source that wasn't already there can !vote"? Too crazy? It would abolish the "me too" !votes which require no knowledge of the subject at all. Add a requirement to stay within one's own subsection in the !vote part of the RfC/RM, which would abolish a good fraction of the bludgeoning. Zero 11:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the disputes are around the lead section phrasing. Something to reduce the focus on what is a very small part of the content. Maybe don't vote on lead content, the editors which have put significant work into the body content have to work it out. fiveby(zero) 12:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a very small part of the content, rather the opposite: it's the only content that matters, because it's the only content the vast majority of readers will read. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You couldn't find a less depressing way of saying it? None of the content matters cause eventually AI will write it all and collecting the right sources is the only thing which has lasting value. Take that. fiveby(zero) 02:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, that's why I spent some time expanding Bibliography of the Arab-Israeli conflict earlier this year. The most useful thing we can do is curate lists of RSes for AI to summarize (and then proofread/fact check the summaries). Levivich (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Gato is saying, but I do not believe that people who haven't read the sources are going to make a better decision than people who have read the sources. "Involved" editors or "regular" editors are more likely to have read the sources than uninvolved/non-regular editors (in any topic area). So I agree with Gato's diagnosis of the problem, but I don't think "more uninvolved editors" is the solution. If anything, I'd lean more towards what Zero suggested ("only editors who bring a relevant reliable source that wasn't already there can !vote"), but what's needed is a way to filter out ignorant editors from knowledgeable ones. I don't know how to do that, particularly since discussion closers are usually uninvolved and thus ignorant of the sources, and so they won't know to down-weigh ignorant non-source-based votes and up-weigh knowledgeable source-based votes. I'm not sure that this is even possible without creating, in effect, an editorial committee, which runs counter to basic wiki ethos. Levivich (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As you yourself note, it's hardly possible to implement the fix suggested by Zero because users would basically just end up squabbling over what constitutes a "relevant reliable source" (there seems to be a fair number of disputes about sources in this topic area already). The only way to fix that would be to have a prescribed list of reliable sources - but good luck figuring out a way to achieve that.

With regard to the question of "ignorant" !voters though - under the system I suggested everybody could still participate, but only uninvolved editors could !vote - so everyone would still be able to make their case. I don't see why !voters could not still judge the arguments on their merits, regardless of their "ignorance" of the topic area in general. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that we can fix this by automatically disqualifying input from any category of experienced editors. Such distinctions need to be conduct-based, not identity-based. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We already disqualify people from editing in the topic area at all. That's what the extended-confirmed restriction is about. This is just an extension of the principle to a certain category of discussions. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind increasing the ECR threshold to 1000 or even 2000 edits. That would slightly increase the threshold for gaming. However, it's worth noting that admins already remove ECR from users in cases of gaming. Andre🚐 16:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course we have ECR, but I said "experienced editors". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for extension

I am collecting some data about AE reports in 2024 since that seems to be of major interest to at least some arbs. I have found 79 AE reports (which includes some not yet closed). Can I get an extension to 85 diffs? Also my work will be presented in table form, but for usability reasons I have broken it into multiple tables. This duplication and just basic notation (e.g. an X to represent that someone was involved in an AE report) means I'm going to technically need a word extension to about 750. But my plan is to have about as much text written in sentence form as is in this request (explaining how to use the tables); everything else will be in table form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Granted, take 85 diffs and 750 words, and the table presentation is fine here. I appreciate you having an exact sense of the number you need :) CaptainEek ⚓ 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Chess

Notified: Special:Diff/1262323401

After seeing his behaviour and interacting with him in the context of PIA, I think there is a disturbing pattern that makes it appropriate for Chess to be added to the "current parties."

Chess was warned in 2020 by Seraphimblade: “The filer, Chess, is warned that filing groundless or vexatious enforcement requests is itself grounds for sanction.”

So far in 2024, Chess has filed three AE reports, two of which involved accusing Butterscotch Beluga and CoolAndUniqueUsername of ECR gaming. In most cases, admins found the evidence to be unconvincing:

• CoolAndUniqueUsername
• Butterscotch_Beluga
• Trilletrollet

The request concerning Trilletrollet was made for incivility... and yet, in just the past few months, I've noticed that Chess has a pattern of casting aspersions, sometimes with threats of AE reprisals, as well as weaponising AE against multiple users. Alongside CoolAndUniqueUsername, I was also falsely accused of being part of an "offsite influence campaign" and of tag teaming with them. The only evidence presented was us sometimes editing the same articles. I don't appreciate being dragged to AE for no reason. I have yet to see an apology.

Additionally, Chess publicly accused CoolAndUniqueUsername of being an SPA on an unrelated discussion, even before the AE case reached a conclusion. Multiple editors called him out for casting aspersions in the same thread, to no avail. One of them was Butterscotch Beluga, who would then become the next target of Chess' ire.

For Butterscotch Beluga, Chess immediately resorted to accusing them of EC gaming in a now deleted comment here (which was deleted after Levivich raised the issue on his talk page). After that, Chess also filed a report against Butterscotch Beluga in AE. The case was closed with no action since there was a consensus amongst administrators that there was no gaming. One of them even commented This is plainly a witch hunt.

This does not appear to be an isolated pattern. Following a discussion w/r/t extra permissions granted to BilledMammal, Chess started a discussion in WP:AN accusing Makeandtoss and Zero0000 of being inappropriate, and demanding that they should be told to knock it off. He also accused Makeandtoss of having a grudge against BilledMammal, suggesting that their legitimate concern about an allegedly biased editor (who also, it must be said, frequently weaponises AE) being granted extra permissions was simply a matter of them being resentful... I'm not going to comment further on the actual discussion that took place there, but jumping to accusations/demanding actions against an editor and an admin for a disagreement should not be ignored.

Chess has also frequently made accusations using external evidence without doing due diligence to prove that these accusations are well-founded. FOARP has noted this here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect to the first two users, it's clear Arbitration Enforcement didn't view those as EC gaming. While I do have evidence of CoolAndUniqueUsername's membership in an off wiki group that I plan on submitting to the Arbitration Committee, the evidence I had about you (or them) was not enough to substantiate the accusation of tag teaming or EC gaming and I apologize for making it. Likewise, for Butterscotch Beluga, while I saw the behaviour as EC gaming at the time, it's clear that administrators do not view making constructive edits to hit 500/30 and participate in Israel-Palestine as EC gaming. So, I will apologize for that thread as well.

Trilletrollet was issued a logged warning at the AE thread after saying it was unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia. A logged warning was my initial ask at the AE thread.

The behaviour at WP:RFPP was deemed unacceptable by uninvolved administrators. My "demanded action" was the closure of the RFPP thread and an acknowledgement that RFPP was the wrong place to have that argument. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding sockmasters to case

Haven’t had much time recently to stay up to date with the case here, and I’m not sure when exactly the deadline for adding users end, but I want to request the addition of four highly disruptive sockmasters to the case: User:NoCal100, User:AndresHerutJaim, User:Dag21902190 and User:Icewhiz. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That'd be moot no? What additional sanction can be levied on users besides permamultiply sitebanned? Andre🚐 20:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The deadline for requesting the addition of new users was 23:59 UTC yesterday. See the notification on your talk page. SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: Well, that’s a bummer as I have been caught up in work. Is there any chance I can get an exception given the developments now that some case parties have been blocked as socks? I have a compelling case to make and I have enough time to post it before the phase deadline ends. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• IceWhiz is already a party to the case, I think? Parties to a case are editors, not accounts; when האופה (talk · contribs) was added, that meant that IceWhiz was added, we just didn't realize it until they got caught. Not that it's likely to matter but I can't see how else it would work. Either way I feel that (regardless of whether we're focused on individual sockpuppets and sockmasters) it might be worth adding evidence concerning how disruptive sockpuppetry has been to the area as a whole; I'm not sure what ArbCom can do about it directly but I can see some people (including some arbs!) taking the position that it might be overblown or that it's handled. Establishing how severe of a problem sockpuppetry is in the topic area could help provide context for why many editors behave the way they do and could perhaps point to some sort of findings that might make it easier to report sockpuppets and get them investigated, and to get accusations of sockpuppetry taken more seriously in this area in general due to the amount of disruption it's causing. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I was digging around in my own contributions. I've been on the fringes of this latest dustup because I noticed what was (in my opinion) ridiculous behavior at the article on Zionism. Read an AE report from last July I contributed to - one of the AE reports that led to the creation of this unfocused "something must be done!" so-called case. The complaint was that Nishidani was supporting the use of the word "colonization" in the context of the Zionist project. The state of play at the talk page at the time was 12 users in favor of "colonization" and 7 opposed. In favor: User:Unbandito, User:Dan Murphy,User:Iskandar323,User:Selfstudier,User:Zero0000, User:Nableezy, User:IOHANNVSVERVS,User:Makeandtoss, User:DMH223344, User:Skitash, User:Nishidani,User:Levivich). Opposed: User:Oleg Yunakov,User: מתיאל, User:Galamore, User:O.maximov, User:ABHammad, Kentucky Rain2, User:Icebear244. Since, 5 of the 7 accounts opposed to the forbidden word have been blocked as socks of banned users (one of them the account that initiated the AE complaint.) An additional account that was calling for Nishidani to be tied to the pillory at that request was also blocked as a sock. None of the 12 supporters of the forbidden word have been blocked as socks of banned users. Nevertheless, there was much hand-wringing from admins about "whatever are we to do with a problem like Nishidani!" and here we are. Meanwhile, the people or groups behind those accounts are still happily grinding away with new accounts. And the AE reports they generated against the people they've targeted are being bandied about as evidence against the rules-abiding contributors. Smoke does not always mean fire. So it goes, so it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of logic, "report filed by a bad actor" is not the same as "accused editor is rules-abiding". There seems, however, to be a chronic problem at AE, of not being able to sort out SPI issues quickly enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting point and one that I've raised privately in our discussions about who to add as parties. Nishidani in particular seems to be a lightning rod for ban-evading editors. Which is something to bear in mind but if course is not absolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that I'm the person who filed the request to add that party, I want to stipulate to the fact that I am neither a ban-evader nor a bolt of lightning. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So stipulated. :) To put my final sentence above differently: that many complaints have been made by sockpuppets does not mean that all complaints are invalid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree wih Aquillon and Dan Murphy about the severity of the problem of sockpuppetry, which is not occurring on a normal individual scale, but on a suspicious industrial scale involving hundreds of banned socks for the same sockmaster. I hope my request can be approved so I can make my case and provide all the evidence about this extremely disruptive issue, which has been increasing the temperature in the topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's 5 of 6 actually, because one of the original 7 changed his mind. Levivich (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Icewhiz SPI

Noting Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#08 November 2024 in which ABHammad and האופה were blocked as Icewhiz socks. TarnishedPath 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm what we have seen this, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Resolution on new parties

After consideration, the drafters have agreed to add Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a party, and instruct the clerks to perform the necessary actions to implement that decision. The drafters had no consensus to add any other party. The window for adding new parties to the case is closed, and we will accept new parties only under exceptional circumstances. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for all the efforts you all are putting into this. I think that parties to this case being blocked as socks after the deadline should be considered an exceptional circumstance, all the more so considering now that there is clearly a huge socking issue in the case. Has this part been also discussed? Makeandtoss (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss what evidence would you provide about the sockmasters you listed (who I assume are the parties you want added)? What would we be able to do about it? CaptainEek ⚓ 07:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: The evidence I would provide relates to showing how this level of socking is on an unprecedented industrial and complex scale, how these sockmasters are alike and potentially connected, and how they have been disrupting consensus building through canvassing and stonewalling; i.e. how they are responsible for a lot of the disruption in the topic area. The benefit of adding them to the case is two-fold: understanding how this decade-running disruptive behavior has been affecting the topic area, and most importantly, being able to propose remedies to both identify and address them during the workshop phase. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My many observations regarding this situation as a whole

I greatly apologise if I am interrupting, or talking out of order, or breaking any to me unknown rule here, but my overactive autistic pattern-recognition cannot help to notice several very suspicious simultaneously coinciding "coincidences" for this case.

1) As stated above, on the "pro-Israel no matter what its government does" "side" there are very suspiciously professional sockmasters who have used hundreds of disruptive and systematically manipulative sockpuppet accounts that have all available tools for avoiding being detected to as great degree as possible.

2) BilledMammal's extensive work here in Misplaced Pages to catalogue the activity of all mostly good faith pro-human rights editors who have a differing perspective than himself regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict seemed to be very unnaturally thorough in terms of absolutely enormous required manual workload for something supposedly not handled via customised artificial intelligence software and supercomputers unavailable to the public at large.

3) BilledMammal has previously participated in several attempts to delegitimise and thereby remove all references from Al Jazeera from Misplaced Pages, which is the main news organisation that reports war crimes by the Israeli government.

And another longtime editor apparently noticed that BilledMammal's behaviour and current arguments (that it is somehow not the army of bad faith editing sockpuppets that is the problem, but rather the usually well-behaved longterm good faith editors who add reliably referenced information and have logical arguments... at least as long as those editors have committed the crime of being for all human rights, including those of Palestinians, and as such are obstacles to the sockpuppet army) are very similar to those of a banned old sockpuppet editor.

4) BilledMammal's list was somehow quickly found and published by a "journalist" in heavy support of the current actions of the Israeli government.

5) The information in question was quickly retweeted by Elon Musk in front of 52.7 million people, while attacking Misplaced Pages, likely in order to build massive social agitation regarding the case.

6) As seen in the following articles, Elon Musk has apparently become a close ally of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

7) Right after Donald Trump won the United States election 2024, as Benjamin Netanyahu and a large statistical majority of the Israeli population wished (likely due to that the support for Israel's current military policies has been statistically recorded as being much stronger among the Republican voter base than among the Democrat voter base, rather than any significant difference in the support from the Biden and Trump administrations), BilledMammal initiated a process to attack several of the editors that he had catalogued.

All of the above, combined with the very heavy overall western news and social media hushdown regarding the full scale of the horrors being committed against the Palestinians, outside of Misplaced Pages, turns on my possibly paranoid pattern-recognition and makes me heavily suspect that Mossad or another professional information-manipulating intelligence agency may be involved regarding this case in order to get the almost last public western bastion of reliable truthful information, meaning Misplaced Pages, in line with the other western news reporting, since the pro-Israeli government sockpuppet army will then have no dedicated defence left against them revising all of the Misplaced Pages pages regarding this conflict as they wish, including by completely banning all references to Al Jazeera.

Also, I ask that Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee members will please take into consideration that, although the pro-all human rights "side" editors are overall nice people by my experience, they are also only human, and as such they may get somewhat testy sometimes due to being bombarded with videos depicting extremely tragic human rights abuses as a natural part of staying informed for their work here, combined with having to deal with a neverending army of extremely biased bad faith editing sockpuppets, and extreme insults and even death threats from pro-Israeli government editors, which I think, yes, are very valid excuses regarding such an extreme situation, especially when dealing with editors who seem to defend the atrocities.

Just a few personally experienced example links following here, and the editors who have been dealing with this topic area far more extensively and for far longer than myself (I have currently also almost entirely retired from it, due to not being emotionally stable enough to continuously deal with this level of horror), have naturally had to endure extremely more of it.

Also, punishing any of them for comparatively extremely minor offences considering the full context of the situation and everything they have had to deal with, would not only be extremely unfair, but also enormously worsen the overall reliability and behaviour connected to this topic area in Misplaced Pages, and also play entirely into the hands of the sockpuppet army that is systematically attempting to remove the most knowledgeable and reliable members there, who know how to edit properly and who follow Misplaced Pages's rules, to streamline Misplaced Pages with mainstream western news media portrayals and control over public information and perception. It would open up the floodgates for trolls, vandals, death-threatening criminals, and large-scale removals of reliable content.

That is all. I hope that my unfiltered manner of communication (I have a very hard time being intellectually dishonest due to my mental handicaps) will not get me in serious trouble here. :(

David A (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)