Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 9 December 2024

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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)