Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cfrito (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 8 February 2008 (notification to marvin_shilmer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Topic banned Motion (orig. case) 18 April 2025
Clarification request: Investigation request regarding Arbitration Committee evidentiary procedure none none 30 April 2025
Motion name Date posted
Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 26 April 2025


Current requests

New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Initiated by cfrito (talk) at 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by cfrito

There exists an ongoing and increasingly acrimonious debate over certain content for the NWT article. At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition. The publisher has reported several times since its initial publication that these names are confidential at the behest of the translators themselves, even after their deaths. Two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses of some importance published similar but different lists after they left the JW organization and began a career of anti-writing. Many other anti-writers have perpetuated these lists. There is no documentation other than the representation of these two anti-writers, and what they wrote was from recollections and published in their own memoirs. The apparent relevance to the Article is that critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds. Thus the accuracy of the names as presented is key to being relevant to the Article. There is sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source material since it tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. Editor Marvin_Shilmer has commenced a battle of discrediting me and others editors which sets the stage for increasing acrimony. Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose him. When ultimately my original edits were acknowledged positively by the mediators, Shilmer took credit. I exposed the issue. It should be noted that the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin_Shilmer. I respectfully request that a review of the use these alleged translators' names use in the article be examined along with how they are presented, and also the actions of editor Marvin_Shilmer in dealing with the issues I raised.

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)


Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Initiated by Jo0doe (talk) at 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[1] [2]

  • assume good faith [3]
  • attempt to use the talk page to discuss matters

[4] [5] [6] [7] • post NPOV tag and Neutrality tag to invite help

Statement by Joe0Doe

I’ve noted what WP article Ukrainian Insurgent Army used for propaganda of one of the nationalistic movement (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist under Bandera) - one sided visions and POV structure of article – push the “action against German” first but ethnic cleaning of Poles to bottom. Moreover I’ve noted an deliberate actions of Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to include not WP:V sources in order to condom disputed by other users data [8]. By using a demagogy approach such tactic was successful. But while checking the most mentioned by Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) source – book by Yuriy Tys- Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823 [9] I’ve found what many of referenced from this book facts by Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not exist in it (while whole book - it’s a propagandistic pamphlet with myths about UIA bravery). Moreover, when I proposed to him use more wider world of sources – I’ve got as a reply again falsification and misinterpretation of provided sources [10] and non civility accusations. Moreover hiding deleting and redistributing the important and well referenced facts continued [11]. Clarification: WP is not soapbox and right place to practice in historical falcification and propaganda distribution As regards Bobanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – aims same as with Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but more “civil” approach [12] – delete or replace important info under “Strategy for improvement” – usage of nonspecific to article facts but delete important to mislead a visitors- if “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” is no more “Ukrainian military formation” – it’s easily to put a statement like” UPA's war against Germany” assuming what UPA is army. Clarification: NPOV facts should not be excluded from article, and in same time there no reasons to put extensive info not about article topic, especially from POV source.

Statement by {party 2}

Actually I have devoted considerable time cleaning up Party 1's POV on this article. I have stated that most of his sources are legitimate but have shown that his pattern of quoting from them is selective, including parts that fit his non-nuetral POV while ignoring those that do not. Party 1's POV is that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) had minimal conflicts with Germans. In his direct words, "UPA participation the Genocide of Polish community (it was only (and sole) large scale military action by UPA in 1943-44)". This has been refuted in numerous sources statements throughout the article.

An example (of many) of his approach to facts and sources, serving his POV follows:

When making an edit to the article, he took one quote from chapter 14 of the following source [13], from page 189, in which Koch, German administrator ofUkraine, stated in November 13th that there was little anti-German activity from UPA. This one quote probably served Jo0does's POV-pushing by painting the picture that UPA wasn't really fighting the Germans. But from the same source, page 187, it was mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflicts in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. But he just pulled that one quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet.

Party 1 sees no problem with doing this with sources, because what he included was indeed a fact (as if lying by omission is acceptable, because every statement in itself is true). That being said, I have retained most of Party 1's edits but have added to them often by using information taken from the same source he did, but ignored.

The only statements that I hid (not deleted) were those that used by a nonacademic website and I requested that he find information from academic website so we can unhide them.

Party 1 claims that I use a source that is not good. I then showed him the citations of numerous historians that use that same source, and mention it as worth reading. Party 1 dismisses my action as "demogogy". I do not conduct original research on sources, I merely follow the lead of established historians. Party 1 tried to use original research to debunk what that source said, and to litter the article (not talk page) with this work.

Party 1 multiple times claims that I am pushing the POV of OUN(B) organization, which is false and disproven by my edits on the OUN where I documented their fascist ideology, political murders and condemnation by a noted Ukrainian religious leader. I have also made constructive contributions on the related article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and have received praise for my work there. But it's a good way of shifting attention from his own misbehavior.

I am only seeking to make this article on a controversial topic as nuetral and objective as possible, something that Party 1 seems to be opposed to doing. Faustian (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)
  • The parties listed to this case were not notified of this Arbitration by the filer; they have now been advised to that end, and the relevant diff. links listed under "confirmation of parties' awareness". Anthøny 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

Plain English Campaign

Initiated by Angela Harms (talk) at 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have placed a message on the anonymous editor’s talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.143.202.37

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plain_English_Campaign&action=history I have done the following:

  • assume good faith
  • attempt to use the talk page to discuss matters
  • post NPOV tag and Neutrality tag to invite help
  • post request for comment on talk page

Statement by Angela Harms

The anonymous editor has been undoing my changes since January 2. I have repeatedly asked the user to use the talk page to discuss changes rather than undoing. The user has deleted NPOV tags, and even deleted a request for comment from the talk page. I have tried to be patient and communicative, and the user has not been willing to enter into a discussion since beginning to undo my changes, on January 2.

Other people on the talk page have noted problems with neutrality, and with having their attempts to improve the page undone.

The anonymous editor's deletion of tags and especially of the request for comment make me think that there aren't other avenues to solve this.

Clarification: it has clearly been multiple IPs, not just the one I mentioned. Sorry about that.

Statement by uninvolved User:Jossi

Clearly a new user needing some help. I will contact the user and lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

There is actually quite a history of edits and reversions from multiple IPs, all AOL Europe. Someone should look at the contributions of Martinoscomp (talk · contribs) as well. I agree this can be handled by ordinary admin action. Thatcher 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

ABCCL deletion

Initiated by pkapsales

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The following is a cut and past of the notice I pasted on the admin's talk page. Notice of Arbitration Please note I submitted a notice for arbitration due to your abuse of power from the inappropriate deletion of a submission and failure to respond to multiple inquiries for your reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KrakatoaKatie"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by pkapsales

I have posted two messages on talk for the admin and she refuses to respond even though she responds to other messages posted on the same date.

It is my opinion this editor is not qualified to edit that subject area and also is not qualified to be an editor since she does not respond to inquiries. She is simply involved in a power play where she enjoys using Wiki to arbitrarily force her opinions, whether ignorant or not, upon the Wiki audience.

The original page I entered on the ABCCL was deleted twice. It was simply an information entry with nothing controversial. As an executive board member of the ABCCL, I have the authority and right to make such entries. This editor has no business wasting my time playing games with deletions.

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

DreamGuy

Enforcing the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 as well as having any idea when DreamGuy is editing and who he is, which is important in light of his past behavior, is becoming increasingly difficult because of his decision to edit anonymously much of the time. As CheckUser, this puts me in an awkward situation because I don't want to have to be the one to carry out all the enforcement for DreamGuy, but at the same time, I don't want to have to out someone's IP unless there had actually been a violation (which another admin should decide, but which would be a waste of time if it's not him...). I would ask that ArbCom pass a motion requiring him to edit using only his DreamGuy account. Thanks. (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, [14], Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Elonka.27s_DreamGuy_report, etc. for evidence of the issue.) Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Dmcdevit feels it has come to that, then I am lifting my prior objections. DG is free to present his case, however. I will drop him a note. El_C 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never made an edit while anonymous that wasn't obviously me. It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who. The simple answer when people continuously file check user claims is to tell them to stop wasting your time with bogus reports. You asked them to point out some alleged wrongdoing that would justify a checkuser, they refused to do so, instead assuming bad faith. I can't guarantee that I will always be signed on, but I can guarantee that I will never deny it's me when it isso there can be no question of any alleged deception. If Wikipedia can come up with a way to make it so I get automatically signed in even if my cookie runs out or the ISP switches my IP address, fine, but I think it's ridiculous and impractical to insist I be signed on when no good reason is given for it. It's just people desperate to come up with anything they can as an alleged sign of wrongdoing. But a better way to solve this is to tell people falsely filing sockpuppet accusations to knock it off. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a concern that Elonka has still failed to cite the diffs promised, and that continues to reflect poorly on her. Still, I notice you often don't use edit summaries; why not always use edit summaries, and check after every edit to see if you were logged in or not, if not, add another minor edit and sign it as DG in the edit summary. Simple enough, no? El_C 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Some days ago I requested an RfCU on Dreamguy as I suspected that he was using a sockpuppet to edit again after having been warned previously on several occasions not to (see here [15]). Indeed, because of his refusal to log on when editing he was blocked for 72 hours [16]. It is my belief that Dreamguy is using an anon IP to edit again, hence my RfCU. The Checkuser request seems to have stalled. Can an admin take a look at my request please? My concern is that Dreamguy has edited the same articles (eg Jack the Ripper and The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91),etc) using several anon accounts, all of them supporting edits made by Dreamguy and/or each other, giving the appearance of consensus from several different editors when in fact it is possibly only one, using what appear to be a variety of sockpuppets (see see this [17] and this [18] and this [19] and this [20] and this [21] in support). Jack1956 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit's request seems reasonable to me. --Deskana (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I find this particular comment by DG...odd: "It seems odd that I would be accused of being deceptive when it's pretty rapidly determined who's who". Actually, it isn't, and that's part of the problem. In October of last year, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dreamguy violated 3RR and acted uncivilly, and because these violations occurred through his usage of his primary account and a back-up anon, the connection wasn't immediately uncovered and reported until after the 3RR and complaints grew stale (El_C and Dmcdevit declined to pursue on these grounds, and the RfCU was stalled while awaiting arbcom/an/i discussions stall). To date, Dreamguy has evaded any and all questions about his activitiies under that (or any, really) anon IP, even when specifically questioned about such by DickLyon.
This wacky excuse of Greamguy's - not knowing he's been signed out - could be true the first time it comes up, might be true the second time, and could remotely be true the third time, but by the fourth such complaint by unconnected editors, its time to for the editor in question to either voluntarily adjust their behavior, or to have it adjusted for them. That the user has refused to admit when questioned as to his anon status seems a clear indication that he is aware that he is doing wrong, and knows that his admission would be damning. Succinctly, any claim of 'oops, I didn't know' rings false.
Because of the ArbCom enforcement complaint in October, I have grown to mistrust DG's motives for editing anonymously. Clearly, he feels that he should be able to enjoy the same freedom to enjoy anonymously that El-C, Dmcdevit or most other users enjoy. Unfortunately, Dreamguy is under behavioral restrictions, which require monitoring for incidents of uncivil behavior. To me, this would seem to lessen (if not eliminate) that freedom to edit anonymously - especially those articles he contributes to under his primary account.
I think that El_C's suggestion that Dreamguy police his own awareness of his IP to be unrealistically optimistic. If Dreamguy were at all inclined to do so, he would have taken these steps the first four times the subject was broached (with at least two of them administrative-level complaints). Unfortunately, Dmdevit's request for ArbCom to pass a motion (requiring Dreamguy to edit using only his primary account) is the proportionate and proper course of action. This would act as a strong incentive for DG to police his online status more vigorously, as a failure to do so would result in a loss of editing privileges. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking 3

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez

Matt Sanchez was recently banned for a period of one year, however he was today (06 Feb 2008) caught editing whilst using a self identifying sockpuppet, apparently with the express purpose of dealing with the article we hold on him, and in particular, a photo which could facilitate identity theft, according to Matt.

Blocking the account and saying the user is banned doesn't make this problem go away however, Wikipedia has an article on the editor in question and it must comply with all the policies that are applicable to the page, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. It is not unreasonable for this user to expect that he can communicate with Wikipedia and ensure that the article is compliant with our policies.

In an ideal world, such communication would be through the m:OTRS system, however there are numerous backlogs and even in an ideal world, OTRS often takes time to deal with tickets, so problems often go unresolved for a few hours. This being the case, there really needs to be an appropriate clause in Matt's ban here which permits him to comment on the article on-wiki, in order that any changes can be made, as necessary. The article in question is reasonably popular, with around 200 edits last month (January), and it's an article that does tend to require protection occasionally, there are edit wars over the article and it does tend to stray from complying with our policies on occasion.

I'm hoping that the Committee will look at permitting Matt the ability to edit, perhaps just his talk page, and we could then transclude that onto a subpage of the article's talk page, in order that his concerns can be addressed and acted upon if necessary. Nick (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case has only just closed and I think it is a bit too soon to go changing the finding. Matt Sanchez had his editing privileges withdrawn because he misused them in attacking other users, and there is no indication so far that he has undergone an epiphany. In any case, of his three known accounts, only one has its talk page protected, so he is able to use the others to communicate. With OTRS, the simpler factual corrections are normally the quickest to be made. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't know who that is, anyone could have registered that username. Regardless of the provocation, Sanchez' behavior was pretty foul, and while rehabilitation is not impossible, it is certainly too soon. It will be important to demonstrate (for example) that he can work civilly and productively with the OTRS volunteers. Thatcher 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2

As part of our recent investigation into off-wiki misconduct, we had been made aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#11_April_2025. Two of the alleged socks of Smallangryplanet have now been ArbCom blocked. However, our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct by Smallangryplanet or Lf8u2. Given the public SPI, which constitutes the extent of the evidence we are currently aware of, the Committee has opted to hear these motions in public. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2: Clerk notes

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

Motion: Smallangryplanet topic banned

For violations of WP:NPOV, likely violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Presumption of coordination,[a] Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

  1. ^ When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves. With the crossover with editors we know are coordinating I think a topic ban is reasonable. As well as the SPI, there's situations where one can't decide which of the responses is an editor banned for off-wiki coordination or an editor that consistently supports one side of a conflict, e.g.[22]
    Strongly support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Tent Massacre as that is what RS are calling it.
    Support massacre with no preference for the rest (I've seen the place being referred to as Rafah more often, but haven't done a proper analysis so maybe that's just my impression). Per nom and other comments, there's not a lack of RS using the term.
    Strong support for massacre in the title, with a preference for "Rafah Tent Massacre". I concur with @Makeandtoss, @Abo Yemen et al. that the term 'massacre' is employed by reputable sources
    We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV, and that When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. We know there is off-wiki coordination, we want the topic area to be better, and we say that CTOPs/AE allow admins to take these actions, so let's show them we mean it. We can't expect an admin or four to stick their necks out if we're not willing to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, per my response below, simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions

Motion: Lf8u2 topic banned

For violations of WP:NPOV, likely violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Presumption of coordination,[a] Lf8u2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

  1. ^ When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves. With the crossover with editors we know are coordinating I think a topic ban is reasonable. As well as the SPI, there's situations where one can't decide which of the responses is an editor banned for off-wiki coordination or an editor that consistently supports one side of a conflict, e.g.[23]
    Strongly support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Tent Massacre as that is what RS are calling it.
    Support massacre with no preference for the rest (I've seen the place being referred to as Rafah more often, but haven't done a proper analysis so maybe that's just my impression). Per nom and other comments, there's not a lack of RS using the term.
    Strong support for massacre in the title, with a preference for "Rafah Tent Massacre". I concur with @Makeandtoss, @Abo Yemen et al. that the term 'massacre' is employed by reputable sources
    We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV, and that When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. We know there is off-wiki coordination, we want the topic area to be better, and we say that CTOPs/AE allow admins to take these actions, so let's show them we mean it. We can't expect an admin or four to stick their necks out if we're not willing to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, per my response below, simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I don't at all agree that consistently editing in support of one side is a violation of NPOV if the individual edits aren't NPOV violations. What if someone consistently focuses on articles that are skewed towards one POV when the consensus of reliable sources supports another? I think it would be inconsistent with NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER to require that someone include false balance in their editing. Misinterpreting sources due to carelessness is an issue; misinterpreting sources in ways that emphasize or advance one POV is unacceptable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SFR does say elsewhere that Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. I do agree with that, and wish it was clearer in their vote above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the question before us is: based on circumstantial evidence of collusion of Lf8u2 & Smallangryplanet with Isoceles-Sai & GeoColdwater, and concrete evidence of off-wiki misconduct by Isoceles-Sai and GeoColdwater, is that circumstantial connection enough for us to assume that Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet were also involved in off-wiki misconduct, such that a topic ban is warranted? These motions were originally proposed in private, but given that we found no private evidence of misconduct, I suggested that it would be more transparent for us to handle the matter in public. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Like @Lf8u2 I am...confused as to why this motion was brought when it has already been stated that there is no evidence that we were part of any coordination, and this is why the SPI case was closed as well. If there was to be any follow up on that case I frankly would have expected a case to be brought against the user who falsely accused myself and Lf8u2 of rather extreme things without evidence...

I’m not sure how to give evidence proving something that doesn’t exist and I will again point to my reponse to @Chess, and add that any overlap between myself and the three other editors – who, if we're being honest, appeared to be randomly chosen since there is the same degree if not higher of overlap between myself, them and others as @VR pointed out – is entirely incidental.

Additionally on a more abstract policy point I continue to believe that it is not a violation of any rules to agree with people in a shared area of interest in a talk page discussion. I don’t know why other users were banned, and I think there is a distinction between inappropriate POV pushing and articulating well sourced information in pursuit of consensus, as I have consistently done. I also think it potentially creates a dangerous and easily-abused standard to suggest that finding consensus with other editors is somehow de-facto suspicious. On a purely personal note I should add that this case has been filed during a two week period in which I’m not able to edit Wikipedia very often, so responses may be sporadic until next week/early May and I ask for some patience. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lf8u2

I remain perplexed as to why this motion was brought against me, particularly given the confirmed finding that no evidence was discovered to support the accusation of coordination and sockpuppetry in my case. As no evidence exists, I do not know on what basis a case proceeds, nor exactly what I am expected to say concerning something that is patently false except to reiterate that it is.

At this juncture, there is one point I feel compelled to address. @ScottishFinnishRadish extended beyond the initial SPI case which found no evidence of misconduct on my part and introduced an additional justification for supporting a topic ban, namely: If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves.

Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. The evidence for these two editors is circumstantial and involves a judgement call. After considering the evidence and the factors I mentioned, as well as the Arbcom precedent noted in the motion, in my judgement there is enough likelihood that they were involved in the off-wiki coordination that I'm comfortable with a topic ban.

I must underscore that this POV-pushing in supposed violation of NPOV reasoning is unrelated to the initial now disproven accusation of coordination and sockpuppetry; thus, I am unclear as to why @ScottishFinnishRadish cited it as grounds for supporting a topic ban originating in that disproven claim. I am entirely in agreement with @Sp, I also have problems with the "our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct" but still bringing these motions forth. If there were real problems, a case should have been brought forth and/or an WP:AE

Moreover, I do not know how one can determine whether a position "benefits the Palestinian point of view" and is therefore suspicious when the argumentation provided for it is based on RS and policy, as is the case with my edits and votes. As pointed out by @Zero0000, subjective characterization of positions benefitting a Palestinian or Israeli point of view or the Israeli can only be demonstrated via objective criteria, such as misrepresenting RS and making policy-violating edits to push a particular POV. Instead there is only an appeal to the disproven SPI coordination sockpuppetry case. In regards to the cited previous RfC regarding Nuseirat and the use of the term "massacre," it was noted that I supported the use of that term. However, I have presented extensive argumentation grounded in RS and NPOV principles, which was not referenced. Furthermore, my arguments were distinct from those of other editors active in the RfC, and I consistently strive to offer a unique perspective in discussions.

The standard @ScottishFinnishRadish is applying to me to justify a topic ban appears particularly curious to those familiar with the subject area, or any subject area as noted by @Sp. Numerous editors engage exclusively in edits and votes that could be characterized as "benefitting an Israeli point of view," many of whom became notably active after October 7, often cast brief, one- or two-line votes supporting the Israeli perspective, employ similar verbiage, while participating in discussions that have been the subject of documented off-site coordination and sockpuppetry (as @Smallangryplanet demonstrated regarding the Nuseirat RfC, and this also applies to others). Moreover, the degree of overlap among these editors is the same or greater than what has been demonstrated in my case. As @Sp observed, this is entirely to be expected given the nature of how subject areas work. Active editors in them tend to overlap and align when they share general perspectives.

Nevertheless, no editor has been banned, nor has any case been initiated against them for engaging in the behaviors @ScottishFinnishRadish now cites as justification for supporting a topic ban in my case.

I share @Sp's grave concerns with @ScottishFinnishRadish's behavior, and I shall extend that to @Chess, the editor who made the initial accusation against me that was found to be without evidence. I do not know why they have not been reprimanded or sanctioned for doing so, and instead a motion was made against me.

If it is to become standard practice to question or sanction editors based on such criteria, then it is essential to establish a clear, uniformly applicable policy outlining these expectations. Furthermore, precise definitions of what constitutes "benefitting a Palestinian or Israeli point of view" must be articulated, rather than relying on subjective assessments by individual administrators. Then apply it consistently to everyone who meets these criteria.

I must reiterate: none of these alleged POV-pushing arguments pertain to the initial, proven-to-be-unsubstantiated accusation of coordination brought against me in the SPI case. Consequently, I remain at a loss as to why a motion was initiated against me when it has been demonstrated that no evidence supports the initial charge.

Should the administrators require any further information or clarification from my side, I would be pleased to provide it. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Lf8u2 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess states: I dug through most of Lf8u2's talk !votes before filing the SPI. The most obvious behavioural trait is !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine.
The largest inconsistency with policy is when adding "massacre" to article titles. WP:NCENPOV says "massacre" is appropriate if it is part of the WP:COMMONNAME or a "generally accepted word used to identify the event". However, editors in this cluster will !vote to add "massacre" based on only a few reliable sources.
So, @Chess disagrees with my talk page contributions and !votes, which once more I must reiterate are always based in RS and policy and I always endeavor to make insighftul. Chess disagrees specifically with my support for the addition of "massacre" in the Nuseirat case, even though I presented detailed argumentation for it which are entirely in line with the RS standard and policy, as observed by @Thryduulf.
If it is considered sufficient to bring a case against me on such a basis, then it must logically follow that cases should also be brought against virtually every other active editor in this subject area since the alleged "behavioural traits" are neither unique nor policy-violating.
We must begin with bringing a case against all those who agree with my position in the Nuseirat case to include the use of "massacre": @M.Bitton, @Rainsage, @Skitash, @Cdjp1, @Genabab, @Raskolnikov.Rev. We must also look at the previous RfCs for anyone who supported the same position, and also support a ban on them.
And those who believe like me that supporting the use of "massacre" in other instances where @Chess believes it is a violation of WP:NCENPOV must also be banned per the same logic. This includes the editors in this ongoing RfC where Chess has proposed the removal of "massacre" citing the same rule: @Darouet, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria.
We must also find the percentages of overlap between editors in votes and ban them if they are at the same level if not higher than @Chess pointed out in my case.
I can keep going, but I hope the point is made. @Chess wants to apply a standard to me that will result in the banning of most if not all editors in this and other subject areas if it were to be applied equally to all.
If @Chess brought a case against me or anyone else in AE on these grounds, it would be dismissed out of hand for being a frivolous content dispute case, and I assume a sanction would also be imposed.
Instead, @Chess elected to link me to three other editors as part of an unfounded and evidence-free allegation of coordination and sockpuppetry, and it was found to be without evidence.
Thus, I must once again question why I am the subject of a motion, rather than the editor who made baseless accusations that were found to be unsupported by evidence, and who is now attempting to retroactively recast the matter as a content dispute — one that could equally be applied to many if not most other editors active in this and other subject areas. Lf8u2 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

  • There's one question I have about ScottishFinnishRadish's vote: We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV:
    • One of the things I should do as a good faith editor to show I am not violating WP:NPOV is to !vote in ways that don't help my particular side but is still consistent with my interpretation of the rules.
    • In this particular case, the fact that 100% of Lf8u2's 16 !votes (out of 17 !votes to all talk pages) relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict benefitted a Palestinian point of view indicated a violation of WP:NPOV.
    • This would be true even if every individual !vote had a consistent interpretation of our policies.
  • If the pattern of Lf8u2 exclusively supporting Palestinian viewpoints didn't exist, would you have voted differently? Or were there other considerations? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of things that informed my vote in this situation. Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. The evidence for these two editors is circumstantial and involves a judgement call. After considering the evidence and the factors I mentioned, as well as the Arbcom precedent noted in the motion, in my judgement there is enough likelihood that they were involved in the off-wiki coordination that I'm comfortable with a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: The difficulty here is that you're trying to set an example for WP:Arbitration Enforcement, but I don't think you're showing a generalizable example here for a topic ban because it's so fact-specific.
    I think Smallangryplanet is extremely suspicious (I reported them, after all) because there's 3 accounts found by ArbCom to engage in offwiki canvassing and also spent most of their time supporting Smallangryplanet (CoolAndUniqueUsername who I reported at AE, later EC-revoked, Isoceles-sai , and GeoColdWater). Lf8u2 has the same behavioural traits as well. But it's unclear what general lessons you want administrators at AE to take from this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention this at the SPI, but the the Tech 4 Palestine Discord introduced Ivana as the "resident Wikipedia expert" in April of 2024.[24] Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, Isoceles-sai, and GeoColdWater all have activity changes in that month or the month immediately after.
    In response to Lf8u2's point that my logic is applicable to other editors: I'm aware. Most of the editors Lf8u2 listed have long histories before the October 7 attacks. However, some of the editors mentioned do share behavioural characteristics with Lf8u2. I only picked the strongest for the initial SPI report, though. I'll pick the second editor Lf8u2 mentioned because I don't want to look through all of M.Bitton's talk page contributions. Rainsage began editing in April of 2024, then their first three !votes were to agree with Lf8u2, Ivana, and Smallangryplanet.
    • Rainsage began editing in April of 2024
Analysis of Rainsage's !votes
  • There's more but I got bored and they continue sinking Rainsage's overlap percentage. It's kind of suspicious that Rainsage started at the same time as the T4P Discord and !voted the same way, but they don't have the same 10-month long !voting pattern overlap Lf8u2/Smallangryplanet do in which they mostly support each other and do not generally !vote outside of helping each other out.
    If Rainsage at some point was in T4P, they probably left a while ago, and stopped performing tasks for the group before it was exposed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have grave concerns with SFR's statement about banning someone for holding a specific POV and supporting it via !votes. I can name 20-30 editors in a number of areas that do just that, including in CTOPs. Yet these two are being singled out. I also have problems with the "our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct" but still bringing these motions forth. If there were real problems, a case should have been brought forth and/or an WP:AE. spryde | talk 16:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aghast that this is apparently solely based on having a specific, consistent point of view. If no misconduct was discovered, what the fuck are we doing here? Human beings have consistent beliefs. Parabolist (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of factors apparently affected SFR's vote, so much so that his second comment hardly even resembles his first. Is this a MEAT issue, or is this an NPOV issue? Going from If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, to simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, isn't a clarification, it's a pivot. No evidence of collusion or canvassing is presented, only evidence of the (now not an issue, apparently) "NPOV" issues. If this motion is purely vibes based, say it outright. Otherwise, present real evidence. Parabolist (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parabolist: It's always been a WP:MEAT issue (the discussion got sidetracked), as the person who originally started the SPI thread at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Smallangryplanet. I've dug through all of Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, and now Raskolnikov.Rev's !votes to talkspace. The important thing is all of these editors started spiking in their activity after April 2024 (when Tech 4 Palestine started) and 70%+ of all of their !votes anywhere in Talkspace agree with Smallangryplanet, who doesn't have that many !votes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I'm very aware of your obsession with the Tech4Palestine case, and the multiple times it has caused you to try to coyly OUT editors in public forums instead of submitting evidence to Arbcom. Your dogged pursuit of those editors is causing you to see patterns here that are simply explained by the fact that the situation in Gaza (and the associated media coverage) drew many people to (or back to) wiki articles. You need distance from this. Parabolist (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am intentionally not commenting on these two particular editors and I haven't looked at their contributions. I just want to address this: "We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV." NPOV is a requirement of the content of articles; WP:NPOV doesn't even mention talk pages in this context. In contentious topics, NPOV is achieved by means of negotiation between editors with different POVs. It is hardly ever achieved through editors sometimes supporting one side and sometimes supporting the other. To first approximation, the latter type of editor doesn't exist. Violations of editorial standards arise when an editor refuses to compromise, refuses to discuss, misrepresents sources, edits against consensus, etc. etc., not just by virtue of having a POV. Expressing an opinion and then accepting the consensus is not an NPOV violation even if this is repeated multiple times. Zerotalk 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing consistently on one side of an issue could also be a way of ensuring articles meet NPOV. For example, K.e.coffman was noted for fixing a lot of existing bias in Wikipedia articles, but that was because she was consistently editing them to be neutral instead of pro-German. Seems too close to arbitrators interfering in content decisions, which they supposedly refuse to do. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I would recommend looking at the SPI evidence and the diffs I've presented. The suspicious factor is they all started editing when Tech 4 Palestine started and most of their !votes on all of Wikipedia are in agreement with Smallangryplanet. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If so that's a problem unrelated to whether their edits could be construed as supporting one side of an issue. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Which of Smallangryplanet's and Lf8u2's !votes are true statements/consistent with policy, which statements are false statements/inconsistent with policy, and which are somewhere in between? Who "benefits" does not strike me as a valid metric because our decision procedures don't care who benefits. Timecards for accounts named in the SPI case are available here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sean.hoyland: I dug through most of Lf8u2's talk !votes before filing the SPI. The most obvious behavioural trait is !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine.
    The largest inconsistency with policy is when adding "massacre" to article titles. WP:NCENPOV says "massacre" is appropriate if it is part of the WP:COMMONNAME or a "generally accepted word used to identify the event". However, editors in this cluster will !vote to add "massacre" based on only a few reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on this specific case (because I haven't looked at the details), if multiple reliable sources independent of each other use the term "massacre" in relation to the event, is that not evidence of it being a "common name for the event" and/or "a generally accepted word used to identify the event"? Certainly it's almost always going to be good enough for there to be a redirect at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine is a useful signal. I'm lazy so I have only extracted strings for 3 of the discussions involving these 2 accounts cited in the SPI. There are many !votes and the choice is pretty much binary, so I have a hard time convincing myself that correlations between these 2 particular accounts' !votes are significant.
Extended content
Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 4 - Requested move 4 June 2024
:'''support''' - See [[WP:PRECISION]] for
:'''oppose''' -- both mean quite differen
:'''Support''' - even to the extent that
:'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate the mor
:<s>'''Support''' The page even documents
*'''Oppose''' for now, as this article is
*'''Support''' per nom. There's very litt
:*'''Oppose''' per the arguments regardin
*'''Support'''. The current title is pend
*'''Support''' to avoid [[WP:OVERPRECISIO
*'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as For
*'''Oppose''' - Sexual and Gender Based V
*'''Oppose''' per FortunateSons, Ïvana, L
:'''Oppose''' I agree with what Fortunate
:'''Initial support but''' with adding "a
:'''Support:''' per [[WP:CONCISE]] and pr
:'''Oppose'''. [[SGBV|Sexual and gender-b
:'''Oppose''' It's important to match the
'''Oppose'''. The title "Sexual and gende
'''Oppose'''. The term Sexual and Gender-

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre/Archive 2 - Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
 :'''Support''': UN sources which I need
 *'''Oppose''' – This article is re
 :'''Support:''' Merge the articles into
 :'''Oppose''' – Responding to orig
 :'''Support''' This is precisely what I
 :'''Support''' — Many sources note the e
 :'''Strong oppose''' I agree that there
 :'''Oppose'''. What was the purpose of t
 :'''Oppose''', The main topic here is, o
 :'''Strong support''' Clearly, the rescu
 :Support merging, but '''weak oppose'''
 *'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NCENPOV]], POV im
 *'''Weak support''', although a title li
 *'''Support''', although I agree with th
 *I '''agree''' because there was no mass
 *I '''agree''' for reasons I provided on
 *'''oppose'''. For the same reason i sta
 *<s>'''Wait'''</s> Until things are clea
 *'''Agree''' The articles should be merg
 * '''Oppose''', there is widespread refe
 ::I strongly '''agree''' that there shou
 *'''Support''' merging the articles and
 *'''Oppose''' and agree with Dylanvt. Th
 *'''Agree '''- most of the killings were
 * '''Support''': It is the same operatio
 *'''Agree '''- This article is an embarr
 *'''Support'''. This is an obvious [[WP:
 *'''Oppose''', or '''support''' merging
 *'''Support''' merger of the article on
 *'''Support''' merge. The latter is part
 *'''Support''' merger of two articles ''
 *'''Oppose''' merge. With over 274 death
 *'''Support''', in my opinion this is a
 * '''Oppose''' per Dylanvt, the massacre
 * '''Support''' per IOHANNVSVERVS and Ti
 *'''Oppose''' per Dylanvt an others. Whi
 *:::That's what I suggested... see my pr
 *'''Support''' merging. The events are i
 * '''Support''' The main event here is t
 *'''Support''', per [[WP:POVFORK]]. [[Us
 * '''Support'''. Both pages describe the
 :'''Support'''. [[User:KronosAlight|Kron
 * '''Oppose''' per Dylanvt. See {{Cite w
 * '''Wait''' until more information is r
 *'''Oppose/wait''': The information is s
 *'''Agree''' per [[WP:POVFORK]]. As of n
 *'''Support'''. [[User:MarshallBagramyan
 *'''Support''' We're talking events that
 *'''Strongly oppose''': the massacre tha
 *'''Strongly oppose.''' We have an artic
 *:'''Support'''. The massacre was an asp
 *'''Support:''' They both cover the same
 *:'''Support''' of a merger under a new
 *'''Strongly oppose''': The sheer number
 *'''Support merge into this article''':
 :'''Oppose''': The hostage rescue has go
 :'''Support''' per [[WP:POVFORK]] and [[
 *'''Support:''' one event happened becau
 *'''Support''': seems like a sort of acc
 *'''Support''' merging under a neutral t
 *'''Oppose''': I think both articles pas
 *'''Support to a neutral title''', such
 * '''Support''' since this is a clear ca
 * '''OPPOSE merge''' - keeping it as two
 * '''Support''' {{tq|since this is a cle
 *'''Strongly Oppose/ disagree''' I concu
 * '''Support''' – The idea that it
 :'''Weak support but keep the massacre w
 : '''Conditionally oppose'''. I'm not su
 :'''Support''' merge, also per {{ping|Dy
 :'''Support''' merge. These are POV fork
 :'''Strongly oppose''': As stated earlie
 :'''Support''' The two articles overlap
 *'''Support''' Per @[[User:KronosAlight|
 *'''Obvious support''' as there is absol
 *'''Strong oppose''', and I rarely use t
 *'''Agree''' - POV fork [[User:Bluethric

Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 21 - RFC on inclusion of Forensic Architecture in lede
* '''Oppose'''. Reliable sources are in
* '''Support''' Forensic Architecture i
*'''Oppose'''. The bottom line on this
* '''Support'''. For the reasons @[[Use
*'''Support''' - I do not find this mat
*'''Oppose''' The problem is not just t
* '''Oppose'''. Forensic Architecture i
* '''Support''' - this has already been
*'''Support''' - and all the complaints
*{{s|'''Support''' - We have [[Talk:Al-
*'''Support''' - Agree with Nableezy's
*'''Oppose'''. Lacks weight and reputat
:'''Strong support''' The False Balance
::I'm also in '''support''' for this re
* '''Oppose'''. In their reports publis
*'''Oppose''' following the views of Bi
*'''Oppose BUT'''  The entire sentence
*'''Support''' I by in large agree with
*'''Oppose'''. The current wording impl
*'''Strong support.''' It's unhelpful t
*'''Support leaving in lede''' Having t
Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Any chance you can share the script you're using to calculate? I am getting tired of manually counting people. Also, this isn't "requested moves in Israel-Palestine", my percentages are based on all !votes. The big signal is that it's very suspicious a bunch of editors decide to start !voting or editing from April-May 2024 when the Tech 4 Palestine server was starting, then a bunch of them !vote to support Smallangryplanet, who also started editing in May 2024. Especially when Smallangryplanet has only !voted probably around 20 times ever. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done any !vote calculations. I don't have anything that counts !votes or even reliably extracts the data. This is the first time I've actually looked at extracting data from discussions that involve !votes. Having looked at a few move discussions to see how feasible it is to pull the !vote, account and comment information from diffs or the wikitext, rather than the quick botch job I did the other day, their unstructured, non-standardized, free-wheeling nature makes it a bit tricky not to miss things e.g. like unsigned !votes. I assume someone has already written something to do this, but I don't know where it would be. Anyway, here's an only-superficially-tested, possibly-quite-brittle attempt at extracting data into a list of dictionaries. Not sure whether that will help at all. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
def get_votes(user_agent, host, page_title, section):

    site = mwclient.Site(host=host, clients_useragent=user_agent)
    page = site.pages[page_title]
    lines = page.text(section=section, cache=False).splitlines()

    pattern_vote = re.compile(r"(?i)'''[^']*?\b(disagree\w*|agree\w*|support\w*|oppos\w*|wait\w*)\b[^']*?'''")
    pattern_user = re.compile(r"(?<!@)\[\[User:([^|]+)\|")

    results = []
    in_vote_section = False

    for line in lines:
        vote_match = pattern_vote.search(line)

        # Only extract votes near the beginning of a line to avoid cases
        # where an editor quotes another editor's vote in their comment.
        # Need to handle situations where vote and signature are on separate lines.
        if vote_match and vote_match.start() <= 20:
            vote = vote_match.group(1)
            comment = []
            in_vote_section = True

        if in_vote_section:
            comment.append(line)
            actor_match = pattern_user.findall(line)
            if actor_match:
                actor = actor_match[-1]
                results.append({
                    'actor': actor,
                    'vote': vote,
                    'comment': '\n'.join(comment)
                })
                in_vote_section = False
            else: # not in a vote section
                continue

    return results

config = dict(
    user_agent = 'Test (Sean.hoyland)',
    host='en.wikipedia.org',
    page_title = 'Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre/Archive_2',
    section = 11,
)

results = get_votes(**config)
@Thryduulf: You can look at (but don't touch) Talk:Rafah paramedic massacre if you want an example of !voting rationales that ignore WP:NCENPOV. Two of the editors Lf8u2 cites as being bannable are present at that discussion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what is required to help this seed grow and whether ArbCom can help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can also look (but don't touch) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kissufim_massacre#Requested_move_24_April_2025 if you want another example of !voting rationales that ignore WP:NCENPOV. But those editors are advocating a pro-Israeli POV, which seems to explain why Chess is not that bothered by them. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskolnikov.Rev: But those editors are advocating a pro-Israeli POV, which seems to explain why Chess is not that bothered by them. You're aware that I started that requested move, right? I am the person that proposed removing "massacre" from the title of that article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you did. That's why I linked it. But your behavioral traits don't match with the claimed violation of WP:NCENPOV regarding Nuseirat. You haven't bothered to reply to any of the pro-Israeli voters and their one-liners, while you did do so in the other case, and you cited the Paramedic RM for examples of policy-violating voting rationales instead of that one. And as the vote is currently going it's set to have about the same result as the Nuseirat one, no consensus for removal. So if this is indeed a very serious violation of Wiki policy that warrants suspicion and action, it doesn't only apply to one side. Also I agree with @Sean.hoyland on working on that MOS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing whether one editor, against whom no allegations of problemtic editing have been raised, is apparently "bothered" equally enough by NCENPOV-violating votes across two discussions? Who cares? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on let me get this straight. Chess made a case accusing Smallangryplanet of running three accounts as meat puppets while citing as evidence overlapping percentages, this was closed for lack of evidence as it obviously and clearly means nothing given the much higher level of overlap with other editors who are active in that topic. CaptainEek says Chess failed to provide any other evidence for this very serious allegation against smallangryplanet and lf8u2, instead only offering off-site evidence that led to two other editors being banned, and a case was remade against smallangryplanet and lf8u2 based on the originally dismissed claim of coordination even though CaptainEek confirms it was found to be without proof?
What exactly are we doing here?
Why is a case being brought against two editors who were falsely accused of running or coordinating with other accounts instead of against the editor who made the false accusation and apparently has a history of doing so based on what smallangry said in the original response?
And I want to join smallangry in asking: If Chess had added two, three, four, five, ten more editors in his original case to tie to the two now banned ones based on overlapping percentages that were as high if not higher, would they all be in the same motion now? He has already extended the insinuation of guilt to M. Bitton and Rainsage.
Chess, can you please provide a full list of all the editors you are convinced are part of this coordination ring so that we can all assess just exactly how far-reaching your desire to ban editors extends? It seems like you want to cast suspicion on most if not all active editors in the Israel-Palestine topic you consider to be "pro-Palestinian". Curiously not a single pro-Israeli editor is among them. That's very strange given your own editing history that's definitely not pushing a particular POV on this topic. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raskolnikov.Rev, could you clarify if the last sentence is ironic and means that Chess is pushing a particular point of view about the Arab-Israeli conflict? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not ironic. I frankly have no idea if Chess is pushing a particular POV about the Arab-Israeli conflict except per the cited metrics in this motion because I don't believe that can be determined by them, like overlap in binary talk votes and generally agreeing with a particular POV. By those metrics I suspect Chess and most editors including myself are "pushing a particular point of view". As @Parabolist said "Human beings have consistent beliefs." But that's not relevant. Actually pushing a particular POV should be determined by the criteria of WP:NPOV, like stating opinions as facts, misrepresenting sources, asserting seriously contested assertions as facts, etc. And I have not seen that being shown for the editors in this motion, nor Chess. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I didn't insinuate M.Bitton or Rainsage are guilty of anything. In fact, I've explicitly said they are not guilty, because if you look at the totality of all of Rainsage's !votes, most of them do not overlap with Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, Ivana, GeoColdWater, etc, despite the majority of Rainsage's !votes being on Palestine-Israel topics. Likewise, M.Bitton has edited for years prior to Tech 4 Palestine, unlike Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 who only began !voting in May 2024, the month after Ivana began running the T4P Discord.
There are 5 main traits I can see:
  • Started !voting on talk pages after April 2024.
  • Overlap in !voting with editors we know, based on direct evidence, to be involved in the Tech 4 Palestine Discord.
  • A lack of !votes that don't overlap
    • 70% of all !votes by the affected editors overlap.
  • Shared POV.
    • Pro-Palestinian.
  • A focus on requested moves.
Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this summary. If this is your case, I have to conclude that you have no case. You have to demonstrate this degree of similarity is not a common feature of PIA editors with similar POVs. Why is 70% large, for example; it doesn't look large to me. Zerotalk 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: The first thing that excludes most editors is the April 2024 start date. There wasn't much happening in the Israel-Palestine conflict except for it being the time Tech 4 Palestine kicked their operation into high gear. Editors with a history of !voting prior to April 2024 will have miniscule overlap with Smallangryplanet because Smallangryplanet did not !vote prior to May 2024. Out of the list Lf8u2 gives of possible socks, only Rainsage[46] and Raskolnikov.Rev[47] had a sudden change in activity in their XTools chart after April 2024. Smallangryplanet[48], Lf8u2[49], CoolAndUniqueUsername (EC-revoked) [50], Isoceles-sai (banned) [51], and GeoColdWater (banned) [52] all had activity spikes after that month.
We've already seen Rainsage's contributions, which initially !voted to support Smallangryplanet but sharply diverged later on. Here's Raskolnikov.Rev's !voting pattern. I will also note which discussions you (Zero0000, using the third person since it's easier to CTRL+F) participated at, since you aren't a sock and were active enough to be named at WP:ARBPIA5.
Analysis of Raskolnikov.Rev's !votes
  • Raskolnikov.Rev's first !vote was on 2024-07-27 to Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. This is in common with Lf8u2, Smallangryplanet, Ivana, and Rainsage. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present and agreed.
  • Their second !vote was on 2024-08-20 to Talk:Gaza war, to support a move away from Israel-Hamas war. This was in-line with Ivana[53], Smallangryplanet.[54] and CoolAndUniqueUsername.[55] Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present and agreed.
  • Their third !vote was on 2024-09-10 to Talk:Gaza genocide. No commonality with others. Zero0000 was not present at that discussion. Vice regent was not present.
  • Their fourth !vote was on 2024-10-09 to Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This was to conditionally support a move request from Ivana, that Smallangryplanet and Tashmetu (EC-revoked for T4P) also supported. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present and agreed.
  • Their fifth !vote was on 2024-10-18 to Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre, where Ivana[56], Isoceles-sai[57], Smallangryplanet[58], CoolAndUniqueUsername[59], and Lf8u2[60] commented on. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present, but did not support including the word "massacre".
  • Their sixth !vote was on 2024-10-20 to Talk:Hezbollah. No commonality with others. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present and agreed.
  • Their seventh !vote was on 2024-10-25 to Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. No commonality with other T4P members. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent supported "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks" instead of Raskolnikov.Rev's "2024 Israeli electronic devices attack in Lebanon"
  • Their eighth !vote was on 2024-10-28 to Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. This was agreed with by Ivana[61], Smallangryplanet[62], Lf8u2[63], and CoolAndUniqueUsername[64]. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent didn't !vote, but was present.
  • Their ninth !vote was on 2024-10-28 to Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War. Smallangryplanet !voted the same.[65] Zero0000 was present at this discussion. Vice regent was present, but didn't !vote.
  • Their tenth !vote was on 2024-10-29 to Talk:14 October 2024 Al-Aqsa Hospital attack. Ivana !voted the same.[66] Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present and agreed.
  • Their eleventh !vote was on 2024-11-05 to Talk:Hamas. Smallangryplanet started the RfC. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present, and suggested rephrasing the RfC.[67] They only !voted on one of the subquestions.
  • Their twelfth !vote was on 2024-12-23 to Talk:Zionism. Smallangryplanet !voted the same at that discussion.[68] Zero0000 was present at that discussion, but !voted "Meh" instead of "No" Vice regent was not present.
  • Their thirteenth !vote was on 2025-02-04 to Talk:Zionism. Smallangryplanet !voted the same at that discussion.[69] Zero0000 was present at that discussion, but !voted for a six month instead of twelve month moratorium.[70] Vice regent didn't !vote.
    • This isn't a !vote, but Raskolnikov.rev called something a bad RfC and it was immediately closed.[71] Nobody else was present at that discussion.
  • Their fourteenth !vote was on 2025-02-25 to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip. Lf8u2[72], Smallangryplanet[73], GeoColdWater[74], and Isoceles-sai[75] agreed. Zero0000 was not present at that discussion. Vice regent was present and sort-of agreed (didn't !vote).
  • Their fifteenth !vote was on 2025-03-06 to Talk:Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre. Smallangryplanet[76] Lf8u2[77] agreed. Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was not present.
  • Their sixteenth !vote was on 2025-03-17 to Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre. This was to agree with Smallangryplanet [78], Lf8u2,[79] and GeoColdWater[80] Zero0000 was not present at this discussion. Vice regent was present, and !voted "Nuseirat rescue and mass killings" instead of "Nuseirat rescue and massacre".
12/16=75% !votes in common with Smallangryplanet, 3/16=18.75% !votes in common with Zero0000. I've just been manually counting !votes, so let me know if you want me to redo this with someone else (e.g. Vice regent, who offered themselves up as an example at the SPI. I don't know if they'd be fine with me redoing this here).
@Raskolnikov.Rev:, since you asked can you please provide a full list of all the editors you are convinced are part of this coordination ring? That list now includes you. How, exactly, did you find out about this motion? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I redid the above, comparing to you. You were present at 11/16 of the same discussions, similarly to Smallangryplanet's presence. However, despite generally leaning pro-Palestinian, you frequently disagreed in minor and major ways with Smallangryplanet/Raskolnikov.Rev, such as by opposing the use of the word "massacre" on certain titles or on stylistic choices.
Smallangryplanet, Raskolnikov.Rev, Lf8u2, GeoColdWater, Isoceles-sai, Ivana, and CoolAndUniqueUsername have never disagreed with each other in a talk page !vote. Not even once. That's abnormal, despite being present at many of the same discussions.
So, to ask Smallangryplanet, Raskolnikov.Rev, and Lf8u2 a question, can you provide some instances of talk page discussions where you actually disagreed on something? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing any of these editors to me is actively misleading since I consciously avoid editing on the Gaza war. In general comparing participating editors to non-participating editors proves exactly zero. Meanwhile, I don't know what "started in April 2024" means in the case of Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet. Lf8u2 joined in 2008 and in April 2024 did no PIA edits except to add two innocuous cats [81] [82]. Smallangryplanet joined in 2021 and in April 2024 made only one edit [83] that is arguably PIA-related, and it wasn't their first PIA edit [84]. I repeat my assertion that you don't have a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: I added in a comparison to Vice regent, who did participate in those discussions, since they suggested comparing to themselves at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Smallangryplanet. I should've taken their advice sooner, because it's made me realize that the bigger signal is the lack of disagreement. I would like your feedback on that comparison. Even though VR participated at 11/16 of those discussions, Raskolnikov.Rev disagreed with VR 3/16 in the above cases.
The reason why "lack of disagreement" is an important signal is because normally, editors negotiate onwiki on talk pages about articles or have idiosyncrasies about policies. Vice regent supported "2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks" (per WP:NCWWW) while Raskolnikov.Rev supported "2024 Israeli electronic devices attack in Lebanon". You disagreed on the length of a moratorium on the Zionism article. It doesn't appear that Lf8u2, Raskolnikov.Rev, or Smallangryplanet have disagreed on even minor issues at RfCs or requested moves.
If a group of editors never, ever disagrees onwiki, it a strong signal that they're communicating offwiki and achieving consensus there before implementing it on articles. It's similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in 2022. Even editors generally aligned with a certain POV will disagree on random stylistic choices, but editors coordinating offwiki do not bother with consensus making onwiki.
  • The meaning of started in April 2024 is because Israel-Palestine requires WP:500/30. Lf8u2 went from 9 edits for a period of 10 years to 30 edits in April 2024, then 129 edits in May 2024, and finally hit 500 edits in June of 2024. [85] Something happened in April 2024 that prompted Lf8u2 to decide, after a period of 10 years of inactivity, to go for extended-confirmed. Then, immediately after hitting extended-confirmed, start !voting in discussions for the first time in their entire editing career.
  • Likewise, Smallangryplanet edited in May/June 2022 for a bit, then went inactive, then made a bunch of edits in October of 2023, then went inactive again trailing to a low of 10 edits in April 2024.[86] Suddenly, Smallangryplanet goes from 10 to 117 edits in May of 2024, and decides to !vote in discussions for the first time ever. Despite sporadically being active for years and having well over a thousand edits before October of 2023, Smallangryplanet didn't think !voting in discussions was a good use of their time until after the creation of the Tech 4 Palestine Discord server in which Ivana canvassed people to !vote in discussions.
  • Finally, Raskolnikov.Rev makes a little over 200 edits in 2015, quits Wikipedia for 9 years, comes back in May 2024, starts making a ton of edits to hit extended confirmed, and immediately starts !voting in Israel-Palestine related topics after getting WP:500/30.[87] Raskolnikov.Rev also had zero interest in !voting until after Ivana joined Tech 4 Palestine.
The reason why these dates are so important is because that is when Tech 4 Palestine started kicking into high gear.[88] There's no dispute that Ivana operated an organized canvassing campaign to influence discussions from that Discord server. The question for the arbitrators is whether these three editors that:
  1. Had very little interest in our discussion processes before April 2024.
  2. Started grinding edits to participate in those discussion processes starting in April or May of 2024.
  3. Spend much of their time at the same talk page discussions after reaching WP:500/30.
  4. Somehow have never disagreed with each other during any of those processes.
Are part of the same known group of editors that:
  1. Decided in April of 2024 to start influencing our discussion processes.
  2. Gave out training and other materials to help get editors to WP:500/30.
  3. Were banned or warned by the Arbitration Committee because they flooded discussions after deciding offwiki to !vote a certain way.
  4. Have never disagreed with these 3 editors, but !voted at many of the same discussions as a possible ringleader (Smallangryplanet).
Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of my professional specialties is critical analysis of statistical experiments. Perhaps that's why I am very far from convinced that you found smoke, let alone fire. It's all just insinuation based on selected weak coincidences. And they are weak, or even non-existent. Take "April 2024". There is nothing in your JJ source about T4P "kicking into high gear" in April other than mention of a Zei_Squirrel post on April 23. But Lf8u2 began the actions you claim prove their guilt before April 23. Smallangryplanet indeed went from 10 edits in April to 117 in May, but why didn't you mention that less than 20 of their 117 April edits (16 I think) were PIA edits, and almost all in one talk page discussion? Their monthly PIA count didn't exceed 30 until October. So Smallangryplanet's supposed massive sudden interest in PIA was barely a whimper. Zerotalk 12:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why, in their lengthy Wikipedia editing histories, why they've never disagreed at a talk page !vote? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mind reader, but one possibility is that they didn't disagree because they agreed. Zerotalk 02:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Thanks for flagging the Zei_Squirrel connection for me, I didn't realize the importance until now. Ivana was introduced to T4P on April 4, 2024, according to page 39 of the dossier in the JJ article. Her expertise on Wikipedia shifted the group towards high-impact/visibility WP:CANVASSING (for which she was banned). Zei_Squirrel had a parallel Wikipedia operation, and accepted Ivana's standing invitation to join T4P on May 20, 2024 according to page 59 of the dossier (possibly May 19th, because this was 1 AM and time zones). This appears to be the cross-pollination moment in which editors from Zei_squirrel's Discord and/or Telegram joined Ivana's WP:CANVASSING operation to learn methods. May 19th/20th is the date Lf8u2[89] and Smallangryplanet[90] first ever !voted in a discussion (Raskolnikov.Rev did not have WP:500/30 by that point). It seems likely that Smallangryplanet/Lf8u2 were part of the Zei_Squirrel operation. They were brought by Zei_Squirrel to the Tech 4 Palestine Discord on May 20. On that day, Ivana recruited them to the ongoing Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel discussion, and the WP:CANVASSING began. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can endlessly modify your story each time the previous version is debunked, but that only goes to prove that multiple different stories can be constructed from the same complex data. Smallangryplanet averaged much less than one PIA edit per day for the 5 months after they were supposedly recruited and that's a fact you can't get past. Zerotalk 02:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I even know about this motion is because I was pinged into it by @Lf8u2, and just because I decided to point out that bringing a case while admins admit there is no evidence against the accused is astonishing to me, I'm now being roped into it too with blatant misrepresentations of my contribution history. You claim to have found a new golden nugget for your conspiracy and to involve me in it: "Somehow have never disagreed with each other during any of those processes". Your claim that I have never disagreed with these editors, "even on minor issues", is false. It also reduces all my talk contributions and arguments to a binary support/oppose to create the appearance of sameness. While for @Vice regent you pointed out variations like "You disagreed on the length of a moratorium on the Zionism article", for me you left out that I for example did not support the moratorium proposed by @Smallangryplanet in the Nuseirat case. And that's after insinuating that my mere presence here was evidence of malfeasance because you hadn't bothered to read the statement where I was pinged. As @Zero0000 has also shown, you are now just blatantly misrepresenting editing histories to cast aspersions against editors.
Even if I had never disagreed in a binary vote with these or any other editors, it would mean nothing. I am not going to artificially feign disagreement with a position or contributor when I don't have any basis to do so in Wiki policy and the sources. That by itself is against policy as @Theleekycauldron said, and the fact that you are trying to impose that as a standard everyone must uphold or they'd be looked upon with suspicion is troubling. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that I have never disagreed with these editors, "even on minor issues", is false. You've linked an edit request in which you disagreed with Smallangryplanet, but the WP:CANVASSING only happened for structured discussions (RMs, RfCs, etc) because those are where !votes = wins.
The moratorium in the Nuseirat case was proposed after you !voted. You didn't take a position on the moratorium there. Vice regent actually proposed a different option at the requested move.
I'm also not asking you to feign disagreement. I'm pointing out, that in the structured discussions at which WP:CANVASSING is an issue, you didn't find any reasons to disagree with Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, Ivana, GeoColdWater, or Isoceles-sai. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? An edit request that was refused by Smallangryplanet was accepted by me and I actually made the edit. That is a "win", as the content appeared on the page. It is a much more significant "win" than a mere binary vote agreement, and you are just pretending like it's totally meaningless even though it goes against the very argument you made for why it proves I am part of some coordinating ring: "If a group of editors never, ever disagrees onwiki, it a strong signal that they're communicating offwiki and achieving consensus there before implementing it on articles."
Your point regarding Nuseirat also makes no sense per your own baseless allegation of a conspiracy, as it wouldn't matter when the moratorium request was posted if it had been coordinated. I would have supported it regardless, and I explicitly didn't at any point. In fact, I didn't even endorse the claim that was raised about canvassing. Again, you said we never had any disagreements, not even minor ones in talks and votes, and that is just blatantly false.
You are shifting goal-posts now because you were caught misrepresenting my edit history. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskolnikov.Rev: These are all fair points, actually. You can see above that in response to Zero0000 pointing out the possible Zei_Squirrel connection, I revised the start date to May 20th, the date Zei_Squirrel joined Tech 4 Palestine. That means you don't really fit the pattern anymore, especially since you've actually provided an example of disagreement. You've convinced me.
Still waiting on Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2, though. I will redo the !vote overlap analysis for them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break: bludgeoning concerns

Not sure if there's a word limit here but please be mindful of bludgeoning in this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, i'm counting at least 3000 words of the 6,200 words here from you, including at least 14 out of 44 replies. Gathering and presenting evidence is important, but this is already miles past the 1000 word limit [91]. Can you at least ask an arb for permission if you plan to post more?
@arbs, if we are dealing with a PIA5.5 type scenario, can we have a structured place to put evidence? if not a pia5.5, then can we enforce word limits? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman: I'm going to hat the extended diffs. I don't believe there's a diff/word limit at community discussion on Arbitration motions, though perhaps there should be (WP:ARCA now has one). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=189894955"